Glenn Greenwald
Politics • Culture • Writing
Steve Bannon's Contempt Charges Reveal Historic Double Standard; Interview with RFK Jr.'s Running Mate Nicole Shanahan on the 2024 Election and More
Video Transcript
June 08, 2024
post photo preview

Watch the Full Episode Here

Podcast: Apple - Spotify

Rumble App: Apple - Google

 

Good evening. It's Thursday, June 6. 

Tonight: Steve Bannon, one of President Trump's top White House advisers in the first part of his presidency and currently one of his closest and most important allies, was ordered to surrender to a federal prison on July 1, three weeks from now. Bannon had been out on bail pending an appeal of his 2022 conviction on charges of refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena that ordered him to testify about the events of January 6; he had a variety of legal arguments as to why he was not required to do that. Bannon was sentenced to four months in prison by a court that rejected those defenses and was allowed to be out on bail pending appeal. The appellate court rejected his appeal, and now the judge has ordered him to surrender to prison, even though he has more appeals left. 

In addition to President Trump himself, who was just convicted of 34 felonies on obviously dubious and – no pun intended – trumped-up charges – Bannon is not the first top Trump aide to be jailed for alleged violations of a congressional subpoena. In March of this year, President Trump's trade advisor, Peter Navarro, reported to a federal prison to serve a four-month sentence on similar charges. And, of course, a large group of key Trump White House officials and other allies, including General Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone and many others have also been convicted and imprisoned, or at least accused and convicted of crimes, all of which is unprecedented in all of American history. 

Indeed, Congress often issued subpoenas to Washington officials that are simply ignored or violated, in one way or the other, where these officials concoct excuses as to why they don't have to appear, that this conflict between the executive branch on the one hand and Congress on the other, is a central part of our system. It's been happening for decades if not centuries, and almost never do those events result in anything close to what has been done to Peter Navarro and now to Steve Bannon. We'll go through the relevant history to illustrate how, yet again, the Biden DOJ and Democratic prosecutors are so transparently weaponizing the legal system and judicial system against their political enemies for partisan ends. 

In general – as I learned firsthand when I started writing about politics in the second term of the Bush administration, and then into the Obama administration where there was a lot of talk at the time about the potential that Obama would prosecute Bush officials and CIA officials for committing crimes like torture, kidnapping and illegal domestic spying – the consensus in Washington politics and media – believe me, has long been for decades – that only banana republics prosecute their political enemies and prosecute their prior administration. I never agreed with that consensus. Indeed, I wrote countless articles against it and even a 2011 book arguing against it and titled “With Liberty and Justice for Some,” but these prosecutions of Trump and his allies do not represent an abandonment of that rotted Washington rule. If it did, I would be cheering for it. Like so many other things, it represents merely a temporary suspension of this Washington rule for one and only one political official named Donald Trump. 

Then: We will speak to Nicole Shanahan, now officially the vice presidential running mate of RFK, Jr. If polls hold up at all, that independent ticket will be one of the most successful independent presidential candidates in decades. Bobby Kennedy’s choice for a running mate baffled a lot of people. While Shanahan is reasonably well known in Silicon Valley – in part for accumulating a net worth estimated at $1 billion, largely, but not entirely, as a result of her marriage to one of the world's richest billionaires, Google co-founder Sergey Brin, and in part due to her own accomplishments, an initiatives – very few American citizens had ever heard of Shanahan and know very little about her, in large part because she never held elected office of any kind. 

That does not mean that she has been uninterested in politics. She has indeed donated a large amount of money, primarily, if not exclusively, to Democratic Party candidates, including Hillary Clinton, Pete Buttigieg and the 2020 campaign of Joe Biden, as well as more left-wing candidates and causes. That, of course, raises a lot of questions about her current political views (which can reasonably change for a lot of people), her past political trajectory, and the role of big money in our politics. We'll talk to her about that, as well as her views on current U.S.-financed wars in Ukraine and Israel, the issue of online censorship, whistleblowers, and much more. 

For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update, starting right now. 


 

After I first began writing about politics, in late 2005, within the next couple of years, one of the issues I talked about most often, was how there was a two-tiered justice system in the United States, where financial leaders, and especially political elites, are largely immunized from the rule of law. Oftentimes, this was taking place in the controversy over many obvious illegal programs that the Bush and Cheney administration had adopted in the name of the War on Terror, torturing detainees, kidnaping those people off the streets of Europe and sending them with no due process to Syria or Egypt to be tortured, or spying on American citizens without the warrants required by law. These were all crimes. And when Barack Obama ran in 2008, he was often asked whether he believed that those crimes should be prosecuted. He always gave the same answer, which is “Absolutely. Nobody's above the law and one of the first things I'm going to do when I win is direct my attorney general to investigate whether crimes were committed there and whether or not there should be prosecutions.” And yet, the minute he got into office, the media started haranguing him, that you don't go and prosecute your political adversaries in the United States, you don't go and prosecute prior administrations. This is only done in banana republics, not in the United States. 

My argument always was: well, what if they actually did commit crimes? What if the prior administration actually committed crimes? What if your political adversaries committed crimes? Are they supposed to be exempt from the same rule of law that applies to all other citizens? If this were a case where the consensus that has long existed in Washington by the media and politicians – that you don't go and prosecute your political adversaries or the prior administration – if that were being really lifted permanently because journalism and politics realized that were wrong, I'd be the first to applaud. That's not what's happening here.

Another issue that I've long talked about is how journalism is corrupt when it does nothing more than, say, “The Republicans say this, the Democrats say this, and it's not up for us to decide. We're just going to report what officials say in the U.S. government. We're not going to tell you if it's true or false.” And so, when the media started after Trump saying, “oh, we're going to start calling him a liar all the time,” I would also be cheering if it really meant an abandonment of that kind of lazy journalism, that kind of corrupting journalism where you don't investigate what powerful people claim, you just report it and mimic it and then leave it at that. But again, this practice is only for Trump. You will never hear of them saying those kinds of things about Joe Biden or Democratic Party officials or anyone else. So, this isn't a form of progress or evolution in how we understand things. This is obviously the political persecution and the judicial and legal persecution of Trump and his closest allies, not in the name of equal justice for all, but solely in the name of weaponizing the judicial system against a political movement that they regard with great fear that they will do anything to stop, including abusing the legal system.

From The Wall Street Journal earlier today on the Steve Bannon case:

 

AD_4nXfe-nsLMbQ-4Byjhtozm0I1mzEXNfdlU34zoQiuRtWtTq120wVhWMaEZLMvqrzZJqEiIZU5qkx-ers6HbrKYqrQPstHVp2Gg90JoLiAjz7EfEVvKVQs_45eMrkjzfxRkSa2okUi57dIM1lxe-kPCLKZF7ChglYPS9GXbNEQ?key=nRkGinTMO8gjYgrcrY0QyQ

 

A federal judge Thursday ordered Steve Bannon to surrender by July 1 to serve a four-month prison sentence for defying the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack and former President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

In a unanimous decision last month, a three-judge appeals court panel rejected Bannon’s arguments that his conviction wasn’t valid because he was following his lawyer’s advice when he refused to comply with a House subpoena demanding documents and testimony. The panel said Bannon’s advice-of-counsel defense wasn’t valid in contempt-of-Congress cases and would impede the legislature’s investigative authority.

Bannon was the first of two former Trump White House officials to face prosecution for defying the House panel. A year after Bannon’s conviction, former Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro was found guilty of defying the committee and later sentenced to four months in prison. Both cases stemmed from House referrals recommending that the Justice Department bring prosecutions. (The Wall Street Journal, June 6, 2024)

 

Someone who hasn't looked at these issues for very long might say, well, if Congress issues a subpoena, you're legally required to obey it. If you don't obey it, or you don't give the documents that they asked for and the testimony that they demand, truthfully, you will be held in contempt of Congress, and that is a crime. The problem is that there is a long history of the executive branch refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas on the grounds that they have the power as the executive branch - which is supposed to be separate from the legislative power - that they have, rights as the executive branch not to turn over information or appear to testify when a co-equal branch, which is Congress, demands their appearance. Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro are by far not the first people who were in the executive branch to give a middle finger to Congress when they've issued a subpoena and yet you'd be hard-pressed to find another case where people explicitly were held in contempt of congressional subpoenas, but who were referred to the Justice Department and/or then prosecuted by the Justice Department for it. 

Here, this is a case where the Biden Justice Department took a referral from a Democratic-run committee, the January 6 committee that was created under Nancy Pelosi's speakership, a committee where for the first time in the history of our country, the House speaker rejected the members that the minority, the Republicans, wanted to put on that committee, the first time in history that a House speaker refused to impanel the members of Congress indicated as members of that committee by the House minority leader and instead, as a result, no Republicans agreed to serve on that committee in protest, except for two Republicans, Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, who obviously are far more aligned with the Democratic Party when it comes to January 6. So, in effect, it was a full partisan panel and so the Democrats in Congress referred these contempt citations to the Biden Justice Department, which in turn decided to prosecute – something almost unprecedented in our history. 

Let me give you a few similar cases to understand what a complete deviation this is from how things have typically been done in Washington. Here, from CNN, in February 2008, during the Bush administration. 


U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey Friday said he will not ask a federal grand jury to investigate whether two top Bush administration officials should be prosecuted for contempt of Congress.

 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Thursday asked Mukasey to look into whether White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers committed contempt of Congress in the investigation of the 2006 firings of several U.S. attorneys.

Earlier this month, the House voted to find Bolten and Miers in contempt of Congress and pursue charges against them.

The White House argues that forcing the aides to testify would violate the Constitution's separation of powers. (CNN, February 29, 2008)

 

And that has been the longstanding view in Washington, that if Congress orders a private citizen to appear for a legitimate investigation, there are all kinds of limits on what Congress is permitted to investigate. And I think it's extremely questionable whether or not they had the authority to investigate private citizens for January 6, because in general, the only two types of investigations that Congress is permitted to initiate are one, to exercise oversight over the executive branch, and number two, to hold hearings to decide what legislation they want to pass. So, if they're, for example, thinking about legislation related to a certain industry, you call the people in that industry, you call the activists against that industry, and you hear from all the sides, and then you decide what kind of legislation is appropriate. That's one example of when Congress can convene investigative hearings. The other is solely to investigate executive branch officials, it's never to investigate private citizens. And yet, that's exactly what the January 6 committee here did. Those precedents saying that Congress can investigate private citizens for their political views came out of the McCarthy hearings when the Supreme Court – twice – in the 1950s, told Congress that they were vastly exceeding the scope of their investigative powers by trying to investigate and harass people for their political views. And that's exactly what the January 6 Committee did. But even leaving all that partisanship and all that precedent aside, there have been so many other cases where Congress declared a certain executive official to be in contempt of Congress, and it never went to the point where Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro's cases have gone.

 

Here from CBS News, in June 2012, another example:

AD_4nXe4W3Q9hS5QzuMLl4f82bnBxmd_0WcyLBIxpcR4-oOYsyKTuwwAniu1m3zmICkMNr0Hi-bGZ32d2kVV7idIzZ56dEsHTtwYV2BwlwGhzQMWV0dLVG9b1uCGID3ny0vIgVTMq2MtIcVXu6JQBoljQT4rfVpNQSEDqWSN1Nln1g?key=nRkGinTMO8gjYgrcrY0QyQ

 

One day after the House voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for failing to provide documents relating to the Fast and Furious gunwalking program […] 

 

The White House says Eric Holder, the Obama attorney general, won't be prosecuted for contempt. Many of you may not even remember what that was, but it was a scandal involving the Justice Department whether they were permitting all kinds of serious weapons to come in through the Mexican border through illegal immigration. And the Congress was investigating that Eric Holder refused to turn over documents the House held him in contempt.

White House spokesperson Jay Carney said the criminal prosecution of the contempt charges will not move forward. He said the president's assertion of executive privilege over the related documents makes the matter moot.

In a letter sent to the House Speaker John Boehner, Deputy Attorney General James Cole confirmed that Justice would not move forward with contempt prosecution. (CBS News, June 29, 2012)

 

I'll take you all the way back to 1983, during the first term of the Reagan administration, where you can see just how long standing this  tradition is that has not resulted in these kinds of prosecutions. From The New York Times, March 1983. 



AD_4nXc_JqXHHXalZFcXdfUbnKUi7azvRc5iEN6-d-3Ua2VpJgQdQK_41YHv6qPJNykxr7oeVHpBm0cvhs52XINQUzOyetHErQT8IkZnI9Uq69VdQt-j8CGrz3HqS4syMUvExb3aQ29xF0EdjyVmU-sGFGBM1GfV80dI6ZLXgo-f?key=nRkGinTMO8gjYgrcrY0QyQ

There you see the headline, the attorney general that was Ronald Reagan's attorney general, William French Smith, defends action by the Justice Department in the contempt case.

 

Under sharp questioning today by Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, Attorney General William French Smith repeatedly maintained that there was no way to prevent conflicts between the executive and legislative branches like the battle over access to Environmental Protection Agency documents.

 

So Congress was trying to get documents to investigate what the Reagan administration was doing with the Environmental Protection Agency, and EPA officials and others refused to hand them over, claiming that that was the executive prerogative to formulate policy, and Congress had no right to intrude. When William Smith went before Congress and they grilled him on why he wasn't prosecuting them and why the Justice Department was, he said,

 

There is ''built-in conflict'' and tension between the branches, Mr. Smith asserted, adding, ''As long as we have this system of government, I don't see how we can avoid the kind of problem we've had here.''

 

…several committee members, expressing dissatisfaction with Mr. Smith's responses, demanded a guarantee that the House would not be ignored the next time it cited an official in the executive branch for contempt and sought to have the case prosecuted.

 

The dispute involves the Justice Department's action in the contempt case against the head of the environmental agency, Anne McGill Burford, who was cited for refusing to turn over subpoenaed documents. 

 

These are all causing very ancient memories to return from an old political scandal. But this really was the same conflict between the EPA and Congress. The EPA director, Anne Burford, was highly controversial. She was extremely conservative and put in charge of the EPA, was a very pro-industry anti-environmentalist. The House wanted to investigate her and she refused to turn over documents and the Reagan Justice Department refused to prosecute her for it.

 

Representative Peter W. Rodino Jr., the New Jersey Democrat who is chairman of the committee, told Mr. Smith that by law, the United States Attorney had a ''mandatory'' duty to present the contempt case to a grand jury. But he suggested that the department seemed to believe it was free to make its own decision on whether to prosecute. (The New York Times, March 16, 1983)

 

So, just look at how many cases involving Republican and Democratic administrations, where members of the executive branch or people close to the president, refused to turn over information demanded by subpoena to congressional committees who were trying to investigate the executive branch. Typically, because of this notion that the two branches are co-equal, one is not in charge of the other, Nancy Pelosi can't pick up the phone and order Donald Trump to appear before Congress or order his White House chief of staff to appear before Congress. That would make the Congress supreme and not a co-equal branch. And that's why those two branches of government are constantly fighting with one another over when they have to turn over documents. It's an inherent and natural part of our system that has often been resolved politically, but rarely with prosecutions, even when, as in the case of Eric Holder and other instances, Congress declared that official in contempt of Congress, and referred the contempt charges to the Justice Department. 

There's just no denying that these are long-standing precedents in Washington, for better or for worse. Again, I'm against a lot of them, I'd be the first one to party if they were really undone but that's not what's happening here. This is a one-time-only suspension of these long-standing rules, not an abandonment of them, in the name of criminalizing the Trump movement and doing everything to sabotage Donald Trump's attempt to return to office. 

As I suggested at the start, this ethos in Washington was a major part of my journalism for the first ten years. It was a topic on which I focused incessantly, and that was because I had started writing about the War on Terror, and I began to see that a lot of what was being done by the Bush and Cheney administration and the neocons who ran the relevant agencies was not just misguided or dangerous or destructive but was illegal, criminal. That definitely included the way the Bush administration was spying on American citizens without the warrants required by law, something that Congress retroactively legalized in 2008 and that became the FISA  law that now gets renewed all the time and that just got recently renewed to allow spying on American citizens with no warrants but, at the time, it was illegal and criminal. The same is true for torturing detainees, which had always been a crime in the United States, kidnapping with no due process and other similar ones as well. And so every time I was arguing that these were crimes and that they should be prosecuted, what I always heard from longtime journalists and media and the consensus in Washington was that, well, it doesn't really matter if those acts are illegal or not, because here in Washington, we don't prosecute top-level political officials for the acts they've undertaken as part of their executive branch duties. That only happens in Banana Republics. That's called criminalizing policy differences or criminalizing legal disputes between the two branches and you just don't do that, otherwise, you can have a never-ending cycle of retribution where one party is putting the other in prison the minute it gets hold of the levers of the Justice Department. 

One of the first debates I ever had with a classic member of the corporate media was when NBC News’s Chuck Todd, went on the air and basically scoffed at the idea – and this is in 2009, the first year of the Obama administration – that there should be any investigations at all, criminal investigations, of Bush officials or what Bush officials did in the past, CIA officials did, or the NSA did, because this is a distraction, he said. It doesn't really matter. It's not the stuff that Obama should be doing. He should be caring about appearing as a centrist, those sorts of things. In Washington, we just simply don't prosecute prior administrations, and I can't tell you how many columns like that were written, how many TV pundits went on cable news and said that it was the overwhelming consensus. I can't think of anyone in corporate media who believed that President Obama should investigate or prosecute prior acts in the Bush administration. In fact, so intense was the media pressure on Obama, that despite promising repeatedly in the 2008 campaign that he would give it to his attorney general with the instructions to look into it, to criminally investigate it, and to prosecute if there were reasonable grounds for believing crimes were committed, saying, I'm not going to be involved, this is a legal question, nobody's above the law, I'll ask my attorney general to look at it. Two months into office, Obama announced that he was not going to allow any prosecutions of anyone in the prior administration, including in the CIA, for any of these crimes. Pronouncing “It's more important that we look forward than backward,” which never made any sense on its own terms, because all criminal prosecutions, by definition, require looking backward. By definition, their acts were undertaken in the past. When it comes to the prior administration, we're going to adopt the view that we don't look backward, we only look forward for the good of the country or whatever, then it is a complete immunity or exemption for politicians from being prosecuted by the law in the same way that ordinary American citizens are prosecuted. And I was indignant about this. I wrote article after article. I wrote, as I said, the 2011 book arguing against this mindset. 

In 2009, I had a big enough platform that I really couldn't be ignored any longer by people in the corporate media, and so I wrote an article about Chuck Todd's comments and heavily criticized him, and he said, hey, I wish you had talked to me before. And I said, well, I don't think I have the obligation. I'm just criticizing your public remarks. But I'd love to engage you on this. And why don't you come on and we'll do a podcast, and I can ask you questions and you can ask me questions and we'll debate this issue. 

 

AD_4nXep0u8FLCfImyTZo2z0Xp4RGTtXaK2K-LYw-hj1YsmksdupR-u95avX3bp8R_CQU1xRSOiD8U_8QyTOtDTW4YaCLvRgmzldsOE3lqUZPjHCcN-jKtd4IPOwBvTzNNUjX9i_zMkVfP0IlMfIP_tvoGcOgUYebOi-VBbvUGWNvQ?key=nRkGinTMO8gjYgrcrY0QyQ

 

And here you see The Huffington Post, in August 2009, reporting on that debate. I'm just going to give you one passage from this discussion that I had with him to illustrate to you how adamant these people were that we cannot have prosecutions of our political adversaries or our past administrations. 

 

GG: Let me ask you about that, then. If a president can find, as a president always will be able to find, some low-level functionary in the Justice Department -- a John Yoo -- to write a memo authorizing whatever it is the president wants to do, and to say that it's legal, then you think the president ought to be immune from prosecution whenever he breaks the law, as long as he has a permission slip from the Justice Department? I mean, that's the argument that's being made. Don't you think that's extremely dangerous?

 

CT: That could be dangerous, but let me tell you this: Is it healthy for our reputation around the world - and this I think is that we have TO do what other countries do more often than not, so-called democracies that struggle with their democracy, and sit there and always PUT the previous administration on trial - you don't think that we start having retributions on this going forward?

 

Look, I am no way excusing torture. I'm not excusing torture, and I bristle at the attack when it comes on this specific issue. But I think the political reality in this, and, I understand where you're coming from, you're just saying, just because something's politically tough doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. That's, I don't disagree with you from 30,000 feet. And that is an idealistic view of this thing. Then you have the realistic view of how this town works, and what would happen, and is it good for our reputation around the world if we're essentially putting on trial the previous administration? We would look at another country doing that, and say, geez, boy, this is — (The Huffington Post, August 17, 2009)

 

And the reason I was so interested in having this conversation with Chuck Todd is not because he was some aberrational voice in the U.S. media. Just look at this ethos here: “the hardcore reality,” “if you know how Washington works” as you go around prosecuting your political opponents, people in the other party, people from the prior administration,” this is what they had been saying for decades – for decades. It's how they excuse the pardon of Richard Nixon by Gerald Ford, even though the evidence was overwhelming that you could have convicted Richard Nixon of crimes the way you did with many of his top aides, all of whom got pardoned. During the Reagan administration, there was an Iran-Contra scandal that involved highly likely criminality on the part of Reagan officials who wanted to fund the Contras in a civil war in Nicaragua, even though Congress had passed a law saying any funding of the Contras in Nicaragua is illegal and hereby banned. The executive branch ignored that law, but they couldn't get funds from Congress. So, what they did was they sold highly sophisticated missiles and other weapons to Iran, got the cash at the White House in secret accounts, and then sent that money secretly to fund the Contras, even though Congress had said, you can't. A lot of the top officials in the Reagan administration were at risk of being prosecuted, including George Bush, the then-vice president. And the minute George Bush got elected, the first thing he did was issue a pardon of Caspar Weinberger and every other Reagan administration official, and most people in the media applauded that and said, “Yeah, we can't be distracted by these kinds of prosecutions.” 

We can't be prosecuting people in Washington. It's too much of a distraction. It makes us seem like a banana republic. This has been the argument for so long. And if I really believed that this was finally being lifted, and the idea was, look, we're going to prosecute people, no matter how powerful they are in Washington, any time they break the law, I would be the happiest person. I'd be the first one to stand up and cheer. But it's so obvious that's not what's happening. There's no remorse or regret about how this was done previously. The minute Trump is out of the scene, they're going to return right again to this rule. It's a one-time exception only, as so many things are, for abusing and weaponizing the justice system against one person and one person only, and that is Donald Trump. 

 




Nicole Shanahan is in many respects a classic American success story. She grew up in poverty, worked her way through college and Law School, including by working in various, hourly jobs like a maid and a paralegal, and is now a 38-year-old highly respected lawyer in Silicon Valley. She's also one of the richest women in the world, with an estimated net worth of $1 billion that is largely, though not entirely, a result of her marriage to Google co-founder Sergey Brin. But most notable, she is now the running mate of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. If polls are even remotely correct, they will likely be the most significant independent presidential candidacy in many years. 

Many things made Shanahan's choice as vice presidential candidate somewhat notable, including the fact that she had never held political office previously. But that is also true of the man who leads the ticket, RFK, Jr. and was also true of someone named Donald Trump before his 2016 victory. Whatever else is true, she's an extremely interesting person with a very rich and I would say vintage American life. And she also has a robust political trajectory, and we are delighted to welcome her tonight to System Update. 


G. Greenwald: It's great to see you. Thanks so much for taking the time to talk to us. 

 

Nicole Shanahan: Thanks for having me, Glenn. And just a quick correction: my mom was a maid. But my first job was busing tables, and I just wanted to. 

 

G. Greenwald: I apologize for that, but that story is true, that you did grow up without any advantages, essentially in poverty, had to work your way through college and Law School and built up what you became, which I think everybody can and should respect. Let me start by asking you about just a couple of, I think, crucial issues, including the two wars that our country is currently financing, arming and supporting. The first one is in Ukraine. When I had RFK, Jr. on my show several months ago, we spent a lot of time talking about his view on that war. And since then, the war has gotten even worse, from the perspective of the Ukrainians. I think it's a consensus that the Ukrainian military is in deep trouble, that the Russians are advancing, and that the idea that they could ever expel Russian troops from all of Ukraine is a pipe dream that will never happen. Do you support the ongoing financing by the U.S. government of the war in Ukraine? And if not, what do you think should be done to try and bring about a resolution? 

 

Nicole Shanahan: Well, first of all, this war should have never happened. The United States should have never egged it on as it has. The U.S. has been involved in Ukrainian affairs for decades now. We've been involved in their elections and have been pushing certain kinds of candidates that have been anti-Russia and against normalization of trade and other relationships with Russia. And so the moment that we're in right now, watching Ukrainian lives lost at incredible rates, young men getting dragged into duty who have no interest in fighting and risking their lives, you have the will of the people wanting peace with Russia in this moment. I was devastated when the foreign aid bill went out. Sending an additional, I believe it was $70 billion, to finance this war. At this moment, I think that it is imperative for the United States to understand what is going on. The United States has intentionally aggravated a situation and has continued to escalate it. It is looking at deploying troops. It has allowed the Ukrainian military to use U.S., military supplies. I mean, every day there's a new escalation. That is taking us to a point of a World War III scale risk for our people. And we need to think about what our job is right now. And our job is to take care of this country and not escalate foreign wars. 

 

G. Greenwald: Concerning that last argument that our job as a country, or the government's duty – it seems so basic, but for whatever reason, it has to be debated because so often it's not done – the U.S. government's primary duty is, as you said, to take care of our citizens here at home. Our citizens are suffering. Communities are being ravaged by all kinds of pathologies. People are in economic difficulty. And so, as you say, why should we be sending $60 billion to Ukraine to fuel a highly futile war? I want to know whether you apply that same line of thinking to the billions and billions of dollars that we're sending to Israel to finance and arm its war against Gaza, one that has resulted in more civilian casualties by a long distance than the one in Ukraine. 

 

Nicole Shanahan: I think that the U.S. sending funds to Israel to support the Iron Dome makes a lot of sense. I've supported that in the past. I think, historically, it's been a great way to show support for the state of Israel. I believe October 7 was one of the worst terrorist attacks I've witnessed in my lifetime and might be the worst terrorist attack I will witness in my lifetime. And I do think a response was warranted. I think that when I think about Israel participating in wars of the past and the role that the United States played, you know, I often think of leadership like Golda Meir, who ended the Yom Kippur War, in about a month, and she was fighting on multiple fronts, against multiple armies. And what I see right now happening on the ground in Gaza is devastating. I think there are arguments to be made that we've long past the point of a cease-fire. I think there are lots of arguments to be made that Israel should be showing more restraint. You know, Bobby and I, this is one of the areas that we have the most heated debate. And I think that there's an argument that the United States should have delivered the last aid package to Israel with greater affirmation as to how that money would be spent. We're in a moment right now that I really don't think we should have been in. And you have to go back historically to really look at the United States' involvement in the Middle East. There's a direct line between our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan and Hamas. Israel thinks that - and many others do as well - that a two-state system is not possible in a world in which Hamas is running Gaza. And I tend to agree with that. But is it possible or likely that the Israeli military is going to be successful in destroying Hamas in totality, at this moment? I don't think so. And I think that was actually clear as early as February. And so I think that at this moment, the United States really needs to take responsibility for what it's done to arrive at this moment. And I do think that there needs to be greater coordination, greater levels of sophistication in how we're operating ourselves in the Middle East at this moment. 

 

G. Greenwald: So when you began, you started talking about funding the Iron Dome, which is a purely defensive system that prevents Israel from being attacked with rockets and other types of missiles, but we're not just funding that. We're, of course, funding all their offensive weapons. Most of the bombs being dropped on civilians in Gaza have been made in the USA and the whole world knows that. I guess what I'm wondering is if the advocates of U.S. financing of the war in Ukraine will say: “we're not helping Ukraine conquer territory and we're not helping Ukraine invade other countries either. It's basically like an iron dome. We're just giving them money to defend their country against aggression and invasion by the Russians.” What is the difference between Ukraine on the one hand and Israel on the other, in your view, when it comes to the question of whether we should be financing their wars? 

 

Nicole Shanahan: I think the primary difference is what is being asked for in these conflicts. So, if you look at Russia's history with Ukraine, what is being asked for is the normalization of the trade relationship between Ukrainian leadership and Russia. And tons of historical records show that Russia has been attempting to create a trade route and access point to the Black Sea. And there's a reasonableness there that I think that most people can objectively say this war could have been avoided. I think when you look at what's been going on in Israel and Gaza and you talk to Israelis, they've been fired at, by Hamas, for so many years, and you talk to the average Israeli who's in their 40s, and they've been now drafted into so many different wars. And October 7 is very different - and I'm just speaking morally. October 7 had a very different effect on the consciousness of humanity and I think that certainly, most people would agree that a response was necessary based on the October 7 attack. There was reprehensible behavior. But I think where the majority of people are in their consciousness at this moment as well is very much wishing for greater restraint from Israel, which has an incredibly sophisticated army compared to Hamas. And I think that given the complexity of the region - and, again, the U.S. has contributed a lot to exacerbating this complexity - there are fundamental differences between these two wars. But that being said, neither one needs to continue, as it has been currently, and there are paths to de-escalation available that this administration is fully and capable of executing right now. 

 

G. Greenwald: Let me just switch gears a little bit, when your selection as vice presidential candidate was announced, there was a lot of discourse suggesting or claiming that one of the reasons, if not the main reason for your selection was that you have a great ability to self-finance an independent campaign. I'm somebody who has long said that the way in which the two parties have constructed this kind of duopoly means that the only way you can succeed as an independent candidate is if you have something like a billionaire on the ticket who can fund the campaign. Nonetheless, I just want to understand, was that part of the conversation as part of the selection process, whether or not you were willing to donate money? How much money do you intend to donate to this campaign?

 

Nicole Shanahan: I can't give you an exact dollar amount. We're in June right now. June, historically for independent candidates, has been very challenging. That's usually when the other two parties really ramp up their PR and media spend and most of that media spend typically goes towards taking out the independent candidate first and then, you know, their opposing party candidate. And I am of the belief that this is an election unlike any other. We have a standing president running for reelection who is clearly showing signs of rapid decline. We have another president who has just recently been convicted of a felony. And we've got now an independent candidate who was the only outspoken public figure during a pandemic that was calling out the origins of a virus and calling out government officials and it’s clear that he was entirely correct. So, my involvement and I feel like my responsibility right now, being on this ticket is to first and foremost make sure he's on every single ballot. And I will contribute as much as it takes to make that a reality. 

 

G. Greenwald: I totally respect that and I understand that argument. And like I said, I'm somebody who in the past has said if you want to be an independent candidate, if you want to challenge the two parties, you know, unfortunately, the only way to do that is if you have somebody in the one or the other slots who basically is a billionaire and can self-finance the campaign to compete with the two parties because that's how they've constructed the system. I'm just wondering, though, when people look at your selection and our political system in general, which you have no role in creating, but the idea that very wealthy people obviously have a much bigger say than ordinary Americans in exerting power in Washington and how laws are passed. You've been a big donor for political candidates for quite some time, do you regard the role of big money in politics as a major problem for democracy, and if so, what kind of reforms would you support? 

 

Nicole Shanahan: I think it's a huge problem. I think Citizens United turned this country into a kleptocracy overnight. And I believe that individual donors should certainly have limits and that independents should be free to run without having to spend this kind of money. The ballot requirements that we've seen are arbitrary and ludicrous. Each state is different. Their requirements are crushing. We have an enormous legal team just to deal with that piece. The thing that has made me really excited is that I recently met with somebody at an organization called American Promise and they are going state by state to try to pass a constitutional amendment that would set contribution limits for both individuals and corporations. Twenty-two states have endorsed it, and it seems to be something that Americans want, by a large margin of the population. The grand majority of Americans want there to be limits, and I am one of them. 

 

G. Greenwald: You referenced earlier the recent conviction in the Manhattan courtroom of former president Donald Trump. Today, before speaking to you, I was talking about the order compelling Steve Bannon, the president's former top White House official, to surrender to federal prison on July 1 for contempt of Congress charges, a charge for which people are very rarely imprisoned. Do you see the prosecution of Trump on these specific charges, the one about the accounting irregularities for hush fund payments, and the other prosecutions of so many people around the Trump orbit as a vindication of the rule of law? Or do you think it's an example of Democrats and others in the establishment weaponizing the justice system to attack their political enemies? 

 

Nicole Shanahan: There's been evidence from both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party using the judicial system and the Department of Justice against political opponents. We have become so divided and polarized in this country that there is no branch of government that hasn't somehow been corrupted by these party lines. I think that they've both been guilty. You can point at many areas where Republicans have done similar things and Democrats have done similar. I mean, no greater example is what happened to President Trump. But the case itself, if you are just objectively looking at how the case was conducted, is a hush money trial that didn't have the correct jury instructions in the hands of the jury. And there were just so many things about it that make you really question the objectivity of the Justice Department at this moment. The Justice Department has always been the last resort. It's been that last layer of defense in protecting our civil liberties in this country, normalcy in this country, objectivity, and the rule of law. To have it be toyed with in this way, to have it be manipulated and distorted, I think is the number one thing. It's kind of the last straw for many people in this country; they feel that we've slipped into an autocratic environment where the rule of law is really no longer the rule of law but the rule of the parties. It's incredibly concerning on so many levels. And I think it has a ripple effect as well. 

 

G. Greenwald: So, I referenced earlier the history that you've had as a big dollar donor in politics, from what I can tell, maybe I'm wrong, but the overwhelming majority of your big dollar donations, if not all of them, have gone to Democratic Party candidates, including both kinds of mainstream centrist types like Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, Joe Biden's 2020 presidential campaign, Pete Buttigieg, his presidential campaign, but also […]

 

Nicole Shanahan: And Marianne Williamson. In 2020.

 

G. Greenwald: I was about to say Marianne Williamson. You supported her, as well as some of the reform-minded prosecutors, including in San Francisco, which is a criminal justice reform cause often associated with the left - although Donald Trump was the first president to sign a criminal justice reform in a long time. Nonetheless, you were donating to classic Democrats. You were a registered member of the Democratic Party until this year when you were going to run as an independent. You alluded earlier to President Biden's obvious rapid decline in cognitive function and ability. But is that all that concerns you about Biden and the Democrats, or is there anything else or other things that have caused you to change your mind about the Democratic Party? 

 

Nicole Shanahan: To be completely honest with you, Biden's health is secondary to – and secondary by a long margin – the enormous corruption I've seen in the party. So, in 2020, I didn't support Biden. I supported Hillary but not with enthusiasm. But it was in 2020 that I realized that the Democratic primary had been completely broken. I knew that Bernie was likely to win the primary in 2016. In fact, I think he won. That was the first real big crack in the DNC that I saw. In 2020, it was truly, very obvious that there was no more Democratic primary. No one could run a fair shot at beating the central democratic dynastic line. And it was very clear that Biden was the only one who was going to get a shot at getting on the ticket. My experience, I mean, this would take hours and hours to unpack, but I've had such excruciatingly disappointing experiences with the leadership of the Democrats. I've heard things said to me and I've seen things done that are incredibly contradictory. They're really pathetic in terms of what the party cares about and prioritizes. There's been almost no interest in addressing the root causes of many of this country's biggest issues, including chronic disease and including budget adjustments that need to be made. They throw around money. They want to win at all costs. Once they win, they're not focused on the American people. They are focused on these auxiliary functions of government. And it's very clear that they have built up this enormous kleptocracy in our agencies. There was no way for me to be able to continue, to take any of it seriously. I couldn't support it anymore. And, you know, you said I've previously supported many progressive DAs. I've also recalled DAs as well that didn't do their jobs. The first I DA supported was actually a former police chief. And he did a pretty good job in San Francisco […]

 

G. Greenwald: That was George Gascón, right? 

 

Nicole Shanahan: George Gascón. Yes. A very much liked police officer. He ran on bringing balance to the system and communication and partnership between the DA's office and the police department. But he also wanted to create trust and make sure that there was no bias that could be called into question, and he wanted to make sure that the police department had a lot of integrity and trust. 

 

G. Greenwald: Yeah, I did think the donation to Marianne Williamson was interesting, in part because her major critique is aimed at least as much at the Democratic Party, as the Republican Party. She often sounds like more of an independent candidate criticizing both parties. A lot of times when people who become very disappointed in the Democratic Party come to see them as pathetic as you said – I empathize a lot with that trajectory – a lot of those people still in the back of their mind, believe that at the end of the day, Democrats are still a little bit better than the Republicans. In this case, I guess, especially under Donald Trump. Is that a view that you share - that if there were no independent candidate, if there were only Democrats or Republicans, that people should vote for the Democratic Party? Are you not prepared to say that one is better than the other at this point? 

 

Nicole Shanahan: I think that there is a clear uniparty and nothing made that more obvious than the way Congress came together in this last session. There is no way that I could swing over and support Donald Trump. I know too much about his record. He had a Raytheon lobbyist running the secretary of defense. He had his loyalists, which represented all kinds of corporate interests, fill his cabinet. He hasn't blinked twice about the fact that he was responsible for Operation Warp Speed had enabled Fauci very blindly to go ahead and conduct the pandemic response. He intentionally pulled the investigation on Pfizer. He's done so many things that, you know, that are just as pitiful as the Democratic Party has done. You know, I like Liberty Republicans. I think that if there's some future where the two-party system returns to any sense of sanity, I could see myself becoming a Liberty Republican alongside individuals like, you know, I think Thomas Massie has done great things for this country. I think that Ron Paul's done incredible things for this country. I think Rand Paul has been really fighting the good fight for this country. And then I also see some good progressives, you know, I think Dean Phillips, has done some very good and interesting things as well. So there are still signs that the two parties can be salvaged. I don't know that we will get there, though, if we just keep doing these huge swings. And, you know, my theory right now is that Trump is peaking, in large part, due to the help of the Democrats and the general understanding in America that the judicial system has been corrupted to support Democrats in this election by prosecuting Trump. But that backfired on them. He's raised over $100 million since the conviction. 

 

G. Greenwald: I just have a couple of more questions in the little bit of time that we have left. I want to respect your time. So, I have a lot of questions for you to come back on, but, for now, I want to ask you about this: since 2016, when there was this sort of trauma to the system of the establishment, Donald Trump's victory over Hillary Clinton, but also Brexit, there's been this kind of systematic attempt to gain control over the kind of information and speech that is permitted to flow on the Internet. There have been governments around the world, including our own government and our intelligence agencies, who have created excuses to either censor the Internet directly or to coerce Big Tech platforms to do it for them. Usually, the justifications are things like, well, we have to combat disinformation as if the government can decree truth and falsity, or we have to combat hate speech or things that are some kind of a threat to our national security. Where do you fall in that debate? Do you believe that there are any reasons that the government or Big Tech should be censoring political speech or on the Internet, other than in obvious cases where crimes are being committed, like fraud or things like that, but when it comes to political speech, do you support the censorship or suppression of any of those views? 

 

Nicole Shanahan: I mean, you can't love this country and also support the censorship. I love this country very deeply. I love this country because of the Constitution. I, in part, went to Law School because of the fact that I believe so deeply in the power of the Constitution to protect individual liberties. And I believe these basic liberties, such as freedom of speech, are what make this country, the country that it is, a country of hope, a country of honor, a country of innovation, a country of living out one's dream. The censorship that has occurred since 2016, especially with the use of AI to censor speech automatically, and these large language models, which are programmed specifically to demarcate categories of speech that will be automatically banned, has been one of the reasons why – I'm sitting here in Silicon Valley right now – I have decided to rebel against Silicon Valley. Part of me joining Bobby Kennedy's ticket is this rebellion. Bobby Kennedy has been censored more than any political candidate in my lifetime that I'm aware of. And I have joined this ticket in part because I am an insider. I know how this happened. I saw it happen. I know why it's happened, and I know exactly how to unwind it. And if given the opportunity, I will on my first opportunity, go into these agencies and take out and disable all of these AI censors. I will also understand the exact points of, you know, government capture of the corporations and the Big Tech platforms. They have, you know, it's not just use or coerce. It's a combination of coercion and knowing and willful partnership. And I've seen it. 

 

G. Greenwald: Yeah. That is interesting that you kind of come from it with that perspective. And so much of the censorship is done by AI. 

All right. Last question. When I had Bobby Kennedy on my show, he said that one of the things he would support almost immediately was pardoning both Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, both of whom have essentially been turned into dissidents for the crime of exposing the crimes of the secret part of our government, the U.S. Security State. Do you agree with that position? And more importantly, how do you see the dangers posed by that part of our government that has no democratic accountability, that works in complete secrecy, that's independent of any party change that we might vote for the CIA, the NSA? How do you see that part of the government? 

 

Nicole Shanahan: Ron Paul said in his libertarian convention speech that there was a coup when JFK was assassinated. And I don't think there's any candidate in history that is going to be able to unravel the shadow government more than Bobby Kennedy, Jr. can and will do. I am fully supportive of the need for that. I think that it is critical to reclaim this nation as a free and stable republic. Assange is a hero. And I think that what he has done through this broader cypherpunk movement is to protect the Internet, which is where most Americans, and especially young Americans, are living out their lives today. It is a forum of engagement, exchanging information, building companies and building coalitions. And if the Internet is not a free place, for people to be able to expose and have conversations about what is going on with their governments, then we've lost the most dominant speech we have, which is, you know, the speech that we have over digital platforms. So, I believe Assange is 100% a hero and it is so necessary. Trump had a chance to do it and he didn't. And I don't understand why he didn’t, because, to me, one of the most obvious and easy decisions he could have made was to pardon Assange. Snowden is a whistleblower. We are a country that has historically protected overseas whistleblowers. Why do we prosecute our own? It's incredibly hypocritical. 

 

G. Greenwald: Well, Miss Shanahan, you gave us a lot of your time. I found the conversation very interesting. We'd love to have you back on, at some point in the future. And I really appreciate your taking the time to talk to us tonight. 

 

Nicole Shanahan: Thanks for having me. It was nice to meet you as well. 

 

G. Greenwald: You too. Have a good evening. 

 

So that concludes our show for this evening. 

community logo
Join the Glenn Greenwald Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
27
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Answering Your Questions About Tariffs

Many of you have been asking about the impact of Trump's tariffs, and Glenn addressed how we are covering the issue during our mail bag segment yesterday. As always, we are grateful for your thought-provoking questions! Thank you, and keep the questions coming!

00:11:10
In Case You Missed It: Glenn Breaks Down Trump's DOJ Speech on Fox News
00:04:52
In Case You Missed It: Glenn Discusses Mahmoud Khalil on Fox News
00:08:35
Listen to this Article: Reflecting New U.S. Control of TikTok's Censorship, Our Report Criticizing Zelensky Was Deleted

For years, U.S. officials and their media allies accused Russia, China and Iran of tyranny for demanding censorship as a condition for Big Tech access. Now, the U.S. is doing the same to TikTok. Listen below.

Listen to this Article: Reflecting New U.S. Control of TikTok's Censorship, Our Report Criticizing Zelensky Was Deleted
post photo preview
Glenn Takes Your Questions on Tucker/Candace v. Nick Fuentes, the Unabomber Manifesto, Independent Media, and More
System Update #500

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

AD_4nXeZ4O4xc3AC6Xv7frryn0gRH426dnSiiWL_fHVJUOiYl0GyRu76Tf_ErdSXxAbt8_5IV4kXzpFumx9nFzEAFwyvBJKuSESoXedKaeqEU0JbvwLnTrSW_CnKdpQw8zuiOEQ2N6y3215-SJqPKJrgyg?key=0DG7XNYuAKh3Go88NaPTAg

Welcome to episode 500 of System Update, which means that over the last two years, ever since we launched in December of 2022, 500 times I have sat my ass in this chair, and we have done a program for you. Today is number 500. 

System Update, of course, is our live nightly show that airs every Monday through Friday at 7 p.m. Eastern, exclusively here on Rumble, the free speech alternative to YouTube. 

AD_4nXeZ4O4xc3AC6Xv7frryn0gRH426dnSiiWL_fHVJUOiYl0GyRu76Tf_ErdSXxAbt8_5IV4kXzpFumx9nFzEAFwyvBJKuSESoXedKaeqEU0JbvwLnTrSW_CnKdpQw8zuiOEQ2N6y3215-SJqPKJrgyg?key=0DG7XNYuAKh3Go88NaPTAg

Every Friday night, as we're doing tonight, we take questions solely from our Locals members. We try to answer as many as we can.

 You may have noticed as well that, inspired by Donald Trump, all art today in commemoration of 500 shows is in gold, not our typical green and black. No, everything is gold. We went all out for tonight. So, I really hope you enjoy it.

AD_4nXeZ4O4xc3AC6Xv7frryn0gRH426dnSiiWL_fHVJUOiYl0GyRu76Tf_ErdSXxAbt8_5IV4kXzpFumx9nFzEAFwyvBJKuSESoXedKaeqEU0JbvwLnTrSW_CnKdpQw8zuiOEQ2N6y3215-SJqPKJrgyg?key=0DG7XNYuAKh3Go88NaPTAg

The first of which is from @alan_smithee. And he asked this:

AD_4nXcOVEUWVResB7KZMPLctzjRXuSSzJZaWbNuBtu-Lqp_3FzyBX_RrAvBlwdDSDeM_cZ7WsQIS54S6dzmUL65MMRz5_J6v1DrbFZdUWL1U-1xR8_PZTPKYI4DpOTRZKvK0bh2IwrfZp9Imwl7JWd7iA?key=0DG7XNYuAKh3Go88NaPTAg

One of the reasons why I didn't talk about it, despite obviously being extremely interested in all three of them and the subject matter that they cover, I obviously am a longtime friend of Tucker’s. I used to be on the show, I think more than anybody else, when he was on Fox News, and now, on his podcast, I'm on frequently, maybe the guest who's been on the most as well, not really sure. It's not a competition. I don't know why I have to keep saying I'm at the top of the charts, but just to indicate the frequency, and he's been on our show before. So, I definitely consider him a friend of mine. Candace, I have a good relationship; I would describe it as friendly. I've chatted with Nick over the years a little bit, certainly not near the same level of interaction. 

I had this issue with Matt Taibbi. I was recently on Briahna Joy Gray's show, but also, I might have even been on a different show, where people were trying to ask me about Matt Taibbi and some of the criticism of him. Yeah, we've gotten questions about Matt Taibbi here as well over the past few months about things like his refusal to comment on Israel and Gaza, his infrequent commentary on the First Amendment issues raised by deporting students who speak critically of Gaza, the imposition of hate speech codes on American campuses by the Trump administration to shield Israel from criticism. 

I'm very honest about the fact that when someone is your friend, when you consider someone as your friend, at least for me, I really don't feel comfortable publicly criticizing them. It's actually one of the reasons why I go out of my way not to be friends or have any social ties with the people I'm supposed to be covering in Washington – politicians, major journalists. I've always thought the fact that I don't live in New York or Washington to be one of the greatest benefits for my journalism because I'm not in the middle of their social scenes. I don’t owe any social niceties to them. I don't feel as though if I criticize them, it's going to affect my social life or put me in uncomfortable positions. I take the obligation of friendship seriously. If you're actually somebody's friend, it comes with loyalty, and part of that loyalty is that, if you have problems with what they do and say, you go to them privately. It would take a lot for me to publicly criticize or down someone I consider my friend.

 I'm just being honest about that. Maybe that's not even the right thing to do. I'm not praising myself. I'm telling you how I feel personally. But again, I think if you live in New York, if you live in Washington, and you're integrated into that political media world, that is one of the reasons why it's so incestuous, why they constantly cover for each other, why there's so much groupthink within it. 

They're always talking to each other, for each order. To be part of these social scenes on which they depend, you have to be welcome. Part of being welcome is that you don't stray too far from their dogma. And I've always aggressively kept a very distant arm's length from people in positions of power, from major media figures, so that I don't feel constrained about giving my honest views or critiques or analysis or reporting on them. 

Occasionally, you do become friends with people almost by accident, who then end up in positions of power. Tulsi Gabbard is a good example. I have no problem criticizing Tulsi Gabbard because, whatever good relations I've had with her before, she's now the director of National Intelligence, and I'm not going to pull punches when I have critiques of Tulsi and I am also going to praise her only because I feel the praise is warranted. 

So, sometimes you just have to accept the fact that somebody has risen to a particular position or entered a type of power position, and there's just no getting around the fact that your job requires honest critique. I don't feel like that's the case for any of the people involved here, Tucker, Candace, or Nick Fuentes. I don't feel like any of them is a government official. Obviously, they all do have a great deal of influence in very different ways. So, I don't want to side with any one of them, nor do I want to necessarily say that I think insults or criticisms that they've launched at each other are warranted, but it is an extremely important conversation, so I also don't want to avoid it entirely, because for one thing these are three people, and obviously people understand how influential Tucker and Candace are. They're arguably the two most prominent conservative journalists/pundits, influencers. Maybe you could put Charlie Kirk in there, maybe Ben Shapiro, but Tucker and Candace are both bigger. I mean, Tucker hosted the most-watched show in the history of cable news for five years at the 8 o'clock spot on Fox. He's been on TV for 25 years before that. And Candace is just a powerhouse. She's a force of nature. Whatever you think of her, whatever you think of the Macron stuff, whatever you're thinking for Israel stuff, whatever, I'm leaving that on the side, I'm just saying. 

The fact of the matter is that when Candace left The Daily Wire, which, of course, is founded and run by Ben Shapiro after she had a falling out with Ben Shapiro and Jeremy Boreing, the other co-founder, over her criticism of Israel, which at the time was very mild – she was basically saying, “I don't think we should be bombing and killing children.” – that was pretty much the extent of it which caused this massive upheaval. A lot of people wondered, well, what is she going to do? Just like people wondered what Tucker Carlson was going to do, and they both went on to become, in my view, far more influential. 

I'm not saying that Tucker's position in the mediocre system now is necessarily larger than it is at the 8 o'clock spot on Fox News, but being at the 8 o'clock hour on Fox News comes with a lot of constraints, as he found out when he got fired, despite being the highest rated host on all of cable news. And he's completely liberated of those constraints now, I mean, completely. Completely. He's financially set. Fox is still paying this gigantic contract. He also now has a very successful platform. I mean, he's not worried about saying or doing whatever he wants. I know he feels – he said this before, publicly, not just in our conversations – that there were a lot of things he did as part of his career that he deeply regrets. Just being part of the Washington Group. 

I think he was raised there. I mean, he wasn't raised physically in Washington, but he eventually went there. But his father was very integrated into the U.S. deep state, that we could call it, ties to the CIA, he ran the propaganda arm of the U.S. government, Voice of America, was very, very integrated into that world. He grew up with a lot of wealth and privileges as he will tell you, and so when he got to Washington and got on TV very early on, he really was just immersed in this subculture that led him to believe, or at least not even necessarily to believe but to say a lot of things that he didn't really fully believe, or maybe that you can get yourself to believe things that you don't really believe because you just feel like it's what everyone around you expects you to say. 

Unlike a lot of people who are guilty of the same thing, Tucker has probably more than anybody else been extremely candid about what he regrets, and not only what he regrets, I'm not just talking about support for the Iraq war, I'm talking about the whole support that he gave for George Bush, Dick Cheney, neoconservative ideology, and not just on foreign policy, but also on economic policy and I think it's often overlooked. Everyone sees his head in foreign policies. Even when he was at Fox, he was criticizing Trump for doing things like assassinating General Soleimani, saying, “This is not in our interest. This might be in the interest of neocons or Israel, but why would we risk a war with Iran when that's not in our interest?” He was saying things like that even on Fox. He probably was the single most influential figure who took a lot of MAGA people, a lot of people on the right, and turned them against the war in Ukraine every night. 

I was on his show dozens of times talking about that war to the point where when he got fired from Fox, a bunch of Republican lawmakers ran to Politico or Axios anonymously and celebrated his firing and saying, “Oh, now our lives are going to be much easier. We can now fund the war in Ukraine without as much public pushback.” And that trajectory was because not just that he regretted what he had previously advocated and acknowledged his wrongdoing, but he was and is really determined to kind of repent for it. And he feels like the way to repent for it is by never again allowing himself to be blind. 

He moved out of Washington, used to live in the middle of Georgetown, where Victoria Nuland lived, I think, down the street or the other street. I mean, that's where they all lived. Now, he lives in rural Maine. He also lives on an island in Florida. He purposely took himself to very isolated places that are completely detached from that world, for the same reason as I was just describing. Not only do you feel less constrained, but you see things more clearly. You don't wake up every day and immediately get surrounded by people who are just part of this blob of groupthink and so, you're able to analyze things from a distance. It’s sort of like if you go into a big city and you're on a street corner, the vision that you have of what the city looks like is radically different than if you fly over it because that distance from what you're looking at gives you a better perspective, or at least, maybe not even better, but different. And the same thing happens when you move out of Washington or New York, and you purposely stay away from it, you start to see things more clearly because you're not immersed in it. And I do find that extremely valuable. 

I find that trajectory very, very positive. It's one of the reasons why, probably more than anything else that I've ever done, what caused much of the left turn against me, not all, but much, was number one, my refusal to get on board with Russiagate, but number two, my association with Tucker. I saw early on that there was a real movement within parts of the populist right, which you're now seeing in lots of different ways, not just questioning Israel and foreign policy and war, but also corporatism and the idea of economic populism. And yes, there are lots of deviations from it, but I mean Tucker and a few others were what made me see how real that was and how much of an opportunity there was, and not just to keep yourself in prison in the Democratic Party. 

So, I do believe Tucker's trajectory is real. I do believe that he's sincere and genuine in what he's saying. You never know what's fully in a person's heart, not even your own heart. You can't know for certain. You can deceive yourself about your own motives, your own thoughts and even the people you're closest to, your friends. But I have enough confidence in how well I know him, not just professionally, but personally as well, the time we spent together, the time that we've talked, that I do believe that he's very authentic in what he's saying. I think his trajectory is continuing. I don't think he's stopped at the point where he's going to be. And I think it's been very positive on almost every level. 

So that’s Tucker over here; then let's kind of put Candace in a similar position. I don't know Candace as well, so I can't comment to that degree of confidence about who she is and why she's doing what she's doing, but, two years ago, Candace worked at The Daily Wire, four years ago, she was in Jerusalem with Charlie Kirk celebrating Trump's move of the capital of Israel to Jerusalem, a long-time pipe dream, what seemed like a pipe dream of the furthest, most radicalized Greater Israel fanatics and their supporters in the United States. And there was very little criticism coming from Candace about Israel. In fact, the opposite was true. 

In her case, she's a lot younger than Tucker, she's only been around for not all that long, and I know personally that when you start off doing this work and you're able to spend full time digging into things, if you're minimally a critical thinker, if you're minimally open-minded, your views are going to morph the more you learn, the more you dive into things, the more you experience things. That is healthy and normal. And I do believe that her views, which she most passionately expresses, to which she pays the most attention, are genuine, which isn't the same thing as saying I agree with them all and they're all positive. I'm just saying I believe she also believes the things she's saying. I don't think it's calculated. I don't think it's about grifting. If it were, she could have stayed at The Daily Wire. There are easier ways to make a popular path than doing what she does. 

She defends Harvey Weinstein. She took up that case. There was hardly a public clamoring for that, especially among the audience that she cultivated. Also, the Macron stuff, all the stuff with Israel – she's been excluded from a lot of mainstream corporate media circles to which she used to have complete access and in which she could have risen without limits, obviously She’s very talented, like Tucker, she is a communicator, and she chose a much harder path, and I think that was through genuine conviction. There are many differences between Tucker and Candace, but for that purpose, you can put them together. 

And then you have Nick Fuentes. And just for those of you who haven't seen it, I'm just going to give you this summary of what's happened in the past few months, not going back years. The short version of this is that Nick Fuentes is often very critical of people who seem like they're the closest to him politically. So, he spends a lot of time criticizing Charlie Kirk – I was going to say Ben Shapiro, but I don't think Ben Shapiro is remotely close to Nick Fuentes – but Charlie Kirk on the surface could be. He spent a lot of time criticizing Matt Walsh. And he has also hurled a lot of criticism and might even say insults toward Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson. 

In response, Candace Owens invited him for the first time on her podcast. Although I do think they have far more views in common than differences, the podcast was a bit hostile. I would say it's, in part, because Candace had some acrimonious points to raise with him, but also because – and she played some of these clips, I mean, Nick Fuentes had very harshly attacked her and criticized her, calling her a bitch who doesn't know what she's doing, and if you're going to do that, the people who are your targets are not necessarily going to love you, and so this was really the triggering event. 

She invited him to her podcast. He got a huge audience – between Candace and Nick Fuentes, who has a gigantic following online, in some ways you could argue he's as influential these days as Candace and Tucker, and maybe headed for even surpassing them, which again, generationally is natural – but because that interview was acrimonious and brought out a lot of tensions and personal conflicts, it kind of spilled over online because Nick left that interview and started really condemning Candace, accusing her of sandbagging him in the interview and the like, and then they had a big fight online. 

And then, before you knew it, Tucker asked Candace to come to his podcast. So, you're now talking about Candace Owens on Tucker Carlson's podcast, obviously a gigantic interview. And both of them, I don't know if they planned it, but both of them talked about Nick Fuentes in an extremely derogatory way. I mean, Tucker did acknowledge that, which you cannot deny. It's kind of like you can hate Trump all you want, but there's no denying his charisma, his skill in communicating, and the fact that he's very funny. 

For a long time, it was like heresy to say that, but there's no denying that that's true. I have no trouble admitting that people I can't stand are smart. I think Dick Cheney is very smart. I actually think Liz Cheney is very smart, just to give two examples, a lot of other ones as well. You can acknowledge the skills and assets that people have who you dislike or even despise. It’s not inconsistent. So, Tucker did acknowledge, like, look, Nick Fuentes is spectacularly talented. He is like a very rare, generational talent in terms of his ability to go before the camera, attract attention and be charismatic. But he's not like a ranter and a raver. Nick Fuentes is very well read, very, very informed. There aren't a lot of people who know more about the topics Nick Fuentes covers than Nick Fuentes does. It's very impressive. And that combination of being very charismatic, an extremely adept communicator, just kind of a natural camera presence, and having really smart insights that are grounded not in sensationalism or blind ideology, but lots of reading and thinking and critical evaluation, it's very potent. That's the reason why he's becoming so popular that even people at the heights of Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson can't really ignore it anymore. 

They talked about Nick Fuentes as though he were just sort of some loser, like Tucker was saying, like, “How did he become so influential? He was just this gay kid living in his mother's basement in Chicago.” And I don't think Tucker quite meant it that way, but that is how some of it came off. Both agreed that he was some sort of psyop to destroy the right, that he maybe was a Fed working for the CIA. 

That led Nick to do a series of shows, a couple of segments, where he just tore into Tucker and Candace, particularly Tucker, in a way that suggests that he was: “How can you possibly call me this, Psyop, or this operative, or this person who works for the CIA, when you spent your whole life inside these circles? Candace Owens was the one working for Ben Shapiro, and Tucker Carlson was working for Rupert Murdoch, making millions; Nick Fuentes wasn't. 

Nick's basic point was, like, you’re all very late to this game, like criticizing Israel, talking about the influence of the Israel lobby in the United States. You've only started doing this last year, whereas I've been doing it for years. This is what I think is at the heart of the matter: there are people who have been talking about Israel in this way for a long time. Noam Chomsky did, Norman Finkelstein did. 

One of the most important events was in 2007 when two of the most prestigious political scientists and international relations scholars in the United States, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, wrote a book called “The Israel Lobby.” First, it was an essay in the London Review of Books, and then it turned into this massive tome, this 700-page book. It’s footnoted to the hilt because they're scholars, and they wrote the book that way. At the time, nobody on the mainstream was willing to say that. It was pretty much confined to the left, where you were free to say it. 

So, at the time, I was more associated with the left, perceived as being on the left. So, I was saying all these things for many years, but it wasn't all that risky for me because of the political camp that people perceived that I was in. I've always had one foot in that left-wing camp back then and one foot in the kind of libertarian, more independent camp, but in both of those camps it was totally fine, totally even welcome to talk about why we do so much for Israel, the evils of Israel, how they control our politics, how we go to war for them, how much money we spend to support them. 

So, I wasn't taking any risks – I've taken risks in my career, but I don't consider that as one – but Nick Fuentes, when he started doing it, was 18 years old, and he had this very promising future inside conservative media. At 18, he'd already been spotted as a talent. He had small shows, but he was making connections with and networking with some of the people who were very influential inside corporate media. People now forget, because now there's a lot of space for talking this way about Israel, but at the time, there was basically none. 

Before Donald Trump, there was almost nobody on the right willing to talk this way about Israel. You had Pat Buchanan, who did it for a long time, going back to the ‘80s, and he was viciously smeared as an anti-Semite. You had Ron Paul, who did the same thing. And then you had Trump kind of come in and create this space, and Nick Fuentes started really looking into it. I'm going into this not because of the personalities, but because I think they raise very broader issues about how all of this has evolved, not just for them, but for the broader discourse. 

Fuentes started off in conservative politics. At first, he thought Israel was our greatest ally and we have to support them: all the standard Republican and conservative views that have dominated both Republican and Democratic Party politics for decades. But then, the more he started questioning it, the more he started becoming vocal about it. And the more he became vocal about it, the more he became shunned inside the conservative media world, in which he had a very bright future. And rather than shutting up, as he was told to do, knowing that that might be better for his career, he couldn't. He just doesn't have that personality type. And he just had to keep examining it and keep saying it, and to say that Nick Fuentes paid a price for that is an understatement. Nick Fuentes has been excluded and booted out of every conceivable precinct of conservative media, even ones that consider themselves radical, dissident and far-right ones. I was playing on the mainstream ones. 

He was physically banned from going to Charlie Kirk's “Turning Points USA” and lots of other conferences like that. He was fired from the media platforms he was starting to develop. He was shunned by the friends that he had made, younger people on the side of the conservative movement. Then, it escalated from there. He got banned from almost every social media platform, including X. Elon Musk eventually reinstated him once he bought X, where he now is, but the only platform where he could be was Telegram. Now, he's on Rumble because Rumble is a genuine free speech platform. He has a show on Rumble that he does, I think, every night or four nights a week, and has found a good-sized audience. But really, it was on Twitter that he got his most attention, and that's why they banned him from Twitter in the pre-Musk era. But it wasn't just that. 

He wasn't just silenced and banned throughout all social media; he was also debanked. He had bank accounts closed, because of his political views, by major banks in the United States. He would get rejected for banking applications. He was put on a No-Fly list, which is the first time I really spoke about Nick, when I raised serious concerns about No-Fly lists being used in this way. His career has been severely impeded, not from what people believe are his racist views about Black people or immigrants; tons of people have those views and are perfectly welcome and fine in right-wing circles. The sole cause of it was his opposition to Israel and his questioning of the power of the Jewish lobby to keep the United States subservient to Israel. It just wasn't said. It was just a taboo. It was one of the third rails of American political discourse that would get anybody fired or destroyed for talking about it. 

Now, a lot of people talk about it, and it's become almost mainstream, but back then, especially on the right, almost nobody did. He paid a huge price, personally, financially, for his career, for his reputation, for his friendships, for his ability to get bank accounts. The government even put him on a no-fly list. And then last year, let's not forget, a homicidal maniac came to his house to try to murder him; shot two of his neighbors and killed them, and showed up at his house with a very large automatic weapon. This person eventually ended up being killed by the police. Another woman showed up at his house, a crazy liberal woman whom he had to pepper-spray. So, he's paid a big price for this. 

I don't want to speak for him, but I definitely identify with this mindset. I've had it too, sometimes, which is that if you are the first person or one of the first people to kind of get out on that plank and you're taking the shots because of it and very few other people are willing to join you,  and then at some point, it becomes a little safer to do it – I'm not saying it's safe; Tucker has also paid a price for it. I mean, half his audience has turned on him. He's now widely attacked by conservatives as being an anti-Semite, a Qatari agent, and Candace as well. So, it's not cost-free at all and Tucker didn't have to do it. He could have just ignored it. So, he's paid for a place too. 

But there's a big difference between Tucker Carlson in his mid-50s with a gigantic multimillion-dollar-year contract with Fox News, coming from the family that he came from, versus Nick Fuentes as a 22-year-old enduring all of that, and he comes from no wealth, no privilege. I think the idea is Nick feels like he was out on that plank, taking all these arrows and punishments, and then, in part, I do think that he helped open the space on the right to start talking more about Israel in a more honest way. It is true that Tucker and Candace, for the most part, hadn't really ever talked about it until after October 7, when, as Nick says, it almost became inevitable. They could have both ignored it. They could've both just spouted a few light lip services to it, but both of them made it very central to their cause, which they didn't have to do. It was not in their interest to do as well. But they did do it. 

But I think he feels like, I'm the one who actually paid the price for this. I was the one who was doing this earlier. Then the two of you come and now start doing it when it's a little bit safer, and also you're more protected because of your platform and standing in wealth, and you want to basically throw me in the garbage and declare me off limits, like, be the gatekeeper that says, you can go up to this point where Tucker and Candace are, but you can't go to Nick Fuentes; he's way too hateful or radical or dangerous or whatever. He feels like they're very late to the game, that he was braver, that he paid a bigger price and then they came along at an easier time and decided that they were the outer limits of where you can go on these discussions about Israel and the like. I'm not saying that's what I think, I'm saying that's what he thinks. I identify with that view. 

I think he would be fine if they would get there and say Nick Fuentes is one of the first people doing this, let's welcome him on our show. But the fact that he's still excluded, to the fact that they called him gay, loser, basically, in his parents' basement, implied that he was working for the CIA or was an agent, probably of Qatar, to destroy the right. I think that's what made him start being resentful, and also, there is this class issue here, which is very real. It's not his fault; Tucker's mother left them when he was very young. Then his father married an heiress from the Swanson fortune. And although she wasn't his mother. It was his stepmother. Obviously, he was living with his father and his stepmother, and they had a very good relationship. She was very good to him. And he ended up having all these benefits from a very young age. First, great wealth and privilege, and then some amount of fame, and then more fame, and then more wealth. And that's more or less been his life. 

Candace, I'm not sure about where she came from, what her family situation was, but once she got very big, she became very wealthy, and then she went to work for The Daily Wire, had a very lucrative contract there, and now she's married to, I heard Nick saying he's British royalty. I don't know if he is, maybe he is. I don't know one way or the other, but I know he's extremely wealthy. And I think there's a class issue there, too, which is like, you two purport to be the kind of warriors for this group of which you're not a part, which has kind of disaffected working-class white people. And Nick's saying, “I actually came from there and now suddenly you two, from your great mountain of wealth and privilege and lifelong or at least in Candace's case, years long, financial power and privilege and status and wealth, whatever, are coming in and trying to talk about me like I'm some loser and yeah I'm a loser in the sense that lots of white people have become trampled on by the United States and that is supposed to be what right-wing populism cares about.” 

So, I thought it was very telling. I do think, if I’m totally honest, it's more personal than substantive. I think Nick feels a lot of resentment for how he's been treated. 

I think Candace and Tucker feel resentment that they put a lot on the line to go where they went and one of the people who has a big influential audience, especially among young conservatives, have kind of gone to war with them. So, I think there's a lot of personal animist and personal resentment driving this, but there's also something very substantive here as well, which is about how people who are a little bit further along on the extremist train sometimes get attacked by the people who are less so, where they want to draw a line and kind of cut off the plank and have you fall off, even though you are on the plank first. I think Nick feels like that's being done to him, and I also think that there is a real class conflict that is driving a lot of this which is very much a part of the conservative world. I mean, huge amounts of conservative influencers, conservative pundits, conservative operatives who claim that they're there to speak for the working-class, for disaffected white people in the United States, are hanging out with billionaires every day and being funded by billionaires and meeting with billionaires and getting invites to the White House and to every center of power. And a lot of compromises are required to do that. And Nick's not willing to make them, and a lot of them are, and that is a substantive issue as well. 

Tucker and Candace, I do think, and they don't get very many invites to those circles. Tucker more than Candace. Tucker because he's been around for so long. He's good friends with people in the Trump administration. He campaigned for Trump, Trump likes him, even though Trump repudiated him and insulted him because of his opposition to the war in Iran. But there are a lot of tension points inside the MAGA movement that are very real, even if some of them are personally driven. We're human beings, we all harbor jealousies and vindictive sentiments and resentments. It's a Herculean effort to try to exclude those as much as possible. We all have to try; some of us do better than others. But none of us is immune from that. So, I'm not suggesting that it's a huge character flaw. I'm just saying I do think that's part of it. But I also think, at least as big of a part, if not bigger, are some of these ideological and class issues who's sort of keeping one foot in decent society and who's willing to say fully what they think without it. And the last thing I'll say is, and this is sort of what I began by saying, which is you can like somebody or not, but it doesn't mean you should lie about their skills or their successes. 

Nick Fuentes, I had a big online following for a few years, but it was very much a kind of online following that was almost like a cult following. It was like a very idiosyncratic group of people. They called themselves the Gropers. They didn't have a lot of cachet or influence outside of their circles, in part because Nick Fuentes wasn't invited anywhere into those more mainstream circles, or even less mainstream far-right circles. He kind of built his entire world himself. 

There are tons of successful podcasters and influencers who really don't have an original thought. They know what they have to get up and say to validate their audience, to show their loyalty to a particular circle. They may even have some talent in terms of rhetoric and communication, some charisma, but they're not very critically minded. They don't do a lot of reading. I can't tell you how often I listen to some of the podcasters of the biggest audience, and you're just like: How are you so ignorant? How do you think about these things? Do you ever stop and breathe and reflect, or read anything? Like read anything substantive in or bound like a Wikipedia page? So, there's a lot of that. 

But go listen to Nick Fuentes, if you haven't. And if you have preconceptions about what he is, I'm not saying that he doesn't say things that are provocative and deliberately cross lines on purpose sometimes, when he doesn't need to, just to cross them. Though I do think it's often purposeful, it's not just about a teenage transgressive instinct. 

So, there are definitely things he said that are offensive. Genuinely so, and not offensive in that, oh my god, you've offended me. But things that I think he would even acknowledge, he often says he doesn't really mean it, he is prone to rhetorical excess, and it's part of the whole presence. But everything that he talks about, he is extremely knowledgeable about and well-versed in. 

AD_4nXeZ4O4xc3AC6Xv7frryn0gRH426dnSiiWL_fHVJUOiYl0GyRu76Tf_ErdSXxAbt8_5IV4kXzpFumx9nFzEAFwyvBJKuSESoXedKaeqEU0JbvwLnTrSW_CnKdpQw8zuiOEQ2N6y3215-SJqPKJrgyg?key=0DG7XNYuAKh3Go88NaPTAg

Next question is from @edonk77, who says this:

AD_4nXe1L93QI1BFLv9QumktSz3JGZEywSN0DZ_rcTDTcarD36MbdOpasa3jIWZohK_PlsSEy3FBfKfUX423UTei4A0akcqCL22qKxng4mL3bH9VQAhq1zPCfRrHMYuHr4ojfSAe7u72BOzpCQjtkIeSE7s?key=0DG7XNYuAKh3Go88NaPTAg

AD_4nXcHuIlRpSgJluRAjey7asSJJW3xxU8USxVgJD6ICJJuspMqbzkvkxEm-V1jmWTxCNGV0iBzyJgqyrcFQDLY0f6K9xfJPSUG9K-2G6a-erUeZKjE2meh-6qnfMJGuxZ8nxEvw4DK5fvn4sZi1ZK6phU?key=0DG7XNYuAKh3Go88NaPTAg

All right, the quick Ted Kaczynski story just for anyone who doesn't know it: out of nowhere in the ‘90s, in the Clinton administration, bombs started being sent to mailboxes. They were pretty sophisticated bombs, and they injured and even killed people. It was taking place across the country, and the FBI, the Attorney General, who at the time was Janet Reno, had no idea who was doing it. 

The person who was doing it wrote a letter, believed by the New York Times and the Washington Post, saying, “I will stop if you publish my essay about my ideas and what's motivating me.” And obviously, the instinct of the government is to say, “We’re not going to give in to your terrorist tactics,” which in classic terrorism is kind of what it was: it was violence directed at civilians to induce political and social change.  But it got to the point where the Justice Department was so desperate, they didn't have a first clue about who was doing that. It was like really the perfect crime. They agreed.

So, the Washington Post, maybe the New York Times, too, published this essay by Ted Kaczynski. The reason the Justice Department was willing to do it, aside from the fact that they thought it would help identify who it was, was because they thought what he had written was kind of just such lunacy, madness, that nobody would really read it and even think it deserved attention. And also, they were obviously made it known that the person who wrote that was the person who was sending these violent acts, the terrorist bombs, killing civilians or injuring civilians. They just assumed the hatred for him would overwhelm any interest in what he had to say. 

On one of those bets, they actually turned out to be right, because publishing this essay caused, eventually, Ted Kaczynski's brother, to come forward and say, “I think this is my brother. His writing seems familiar. His ideas are familiar.” That's how they were able to eventually track Ted Kaczynski down. 

Ted Kaczynski was a prodigy, recognized by everybody, as being brilliant – graduated high school at the age of 15, went to Harvard, completed a degree in mathematics. He then went to a PhD program, I think at the University of Chicago, at a top school, and then ended up teaching at Berkeley. And he was on the path of being the youngest ever tenured professor. He was a genuinely brilliant person, not brilliant in the sense that David Frum or Ann Abelbaum gets called brilliant, but genuinely brilliant. 

But what they were very wrong about was the fact that nobody would have any interest in his essay, that nobody would connect to any of his ideas, and that the hatred for Ted Kaczynski, even if people were willing to be open-minded, would make people refuse to read a terrorist essay and take it seriously. At first, that was true, but over time, people started turning to it and saying, “You know what? This seems quite important. There are a lot of ideas here that are very, very relevant and seem prophetic and explain a lot of what previously had been inexplicable.” 

I can't do a good job paraphrasing or summarizing the essay. It's very complex. It's highly worth reading. You can find it free online. It ended up being published in a longer-form, book format. You can read the essay in its long form or the book. But the basic theme of it was that technology was destroying humanity and the ability for human beings to live happy and fulfilled lives. And he traced it back to the Industrial Revolution, but then, how technology has advanced more and more. Before the Industrial Revolution, people were living in small towns, in villages, in nature like they had always lived on farms, had churches, had communities. They were very closely connected to their neighbors, to their extended family and they were living as human beings had lived for thousands of years. We're political and social animals. We need a connection. Without connection, human beings are going to go crazy. 

Eventually, we got to the point Charles Dickens was talking about: the hideous realities of living in gigantic cities as factory workers, completely exploited, working extremely long days for little pay. It is breaking people physically, spiritually, psychologically and emotionally, and that is definitely one of the costs, as we've even gone further down this road. 

And I think it's what Ted Kaczynski predicted, which is that the more technologically we come, the less human, the less fulfilled our natural human needs are. What it means to be human will be consumed by technology and turned into even more exploited tools and objects that barely look at us as humans, arranging our lives so that everything that gives us pleasure and is necessary for happiness is taken away. 

And just quickly on this, there's a Netflix documentary, I've mentioned this before, called “Happiness,” which is a documentary designed to ask, what is human happiness? How do humans acquire happiness? What is necessary and what isn't? And what they found is that a lot of what data reflects is that in many societies where people are economically deprived and without a lot of technology, they're much happier than in much wealthier Western countries. 

This documentary makes a very good case using science, not just pop psychology, about why, oftentimes, technological expansion and wealth expansion undermine human happiness. Ted Kaczynski also warned that, as technology evolved further and further, our societies are less humane, less fulfilling and less connected. And clearly, all of that is true. That is exactly what has happened. I'm not saying we need to dismantle it, but he actually lived those words, he dropped out of the whole matrix basically, when he was, I think 24, left his job as a faculty member and just went into the woods, lived a self-sufficient life off the grid, read, wrote, and did not much else other than working on his writing and his development and thoughts. The more he did that, the more he became convinced that being in the middle of this matrix was uniquely devastating to the ability of humans to be free and happy. 

Of course, that started resonating in America and in Europe and throughout the Western world as people became less and less happy. All the things he was describing as to why, and the role technology plays in that, would obviously exacerbate all that. Remember, this was 1995. I mean, the internet was just starting, but it was nowhere near as dominant in our lives. 

Obviously, with the internet, we often talk to people on phones or on screens. We have our phones everywhere. So, a lot of the human connection and interactivity you once had just walking on the street is now taken away from you because everybody's staring at their phones. You go to restaurants, any restaurant anywhere in the Western world, and you have people who are related, people who are friends, who talk a little, and they both pull out their phones. And before you know it, they're both staring at their phones, and especially with COVID, which forcibly segregated everybody and kept everybody at home, where people even developed a greater dependence on the internet to do everything, including interacting with other humans, this isolation has become far worse and all of the predictable pathologies that come with it that he predicted are also worsening very rapidly, in a very dangerous way. 

I mean, to me, this is the West's greatest problem: spiritual decay that comes from lack of connection. Obviously, there are benefits to technology. We have cures to diseases that we would otherwise die from. The internet makes the world easier, gives you access to things, including reading and information that you otherwise, etc. etc. There are a lot of benefits. But for me, one of the things I think I've learned is that the only real law of the universe is balance, by which I mean for everything that you drive a benefit, there's an equal cost, at least, that offsets it and keeps it in balance. Whatever: fame, wealth, career, success, it all comes with a cost. I definitely think that's the case of technology, and Ted Kaczynski was one of the first people to lay out this case in the way he laid it out. So even though he was a terrorist, even though he killed people, a lot of people began to think, you know what? I think there's a lot of validity here. 

You might ask why he goes to the scene to kill people? He had an academic pedigree. He probably could have gotten this published. I don't really know. I haven't paid much attention lately to this whole episode, so I forgot what the rationale was for that. But in any event, maybe he was also a little imbalanced himself. That probably was true. But, sometimes, being mentally imbalanced or at least mentally alienated, in a way, is necessary to produce insights. Even going back to that last question we talked about, you remove yourself from a certain society or a sector of society, it gives you a much greater clarity of thought because you're no longer connected to it or in it, and you can see it much clearly. I'm sure that's what happens if you just remove yourself completely. 

One of the things the question asked about is left-wing politics. And the person who just asked this question, I'm on the political left, but a lot of his critiques of what left-wings politics is about and the flaws in it, I must admit have validity. And basically, what Ted Kaczynski's warning was, and this definitely proved prophetic, was that the idea would be to make this system of technology and the capitalism that emerged from it invulnerable, so nobody blamed it, nobody wants to undermine it, nobody wants to subvert it, no matter what it's doing to us we're all propagandized to revere it to believe it's all good to believe it's invulnerable, to believe that we benefit from it. And he said one of the ways that that's going to succeed is that people are going to be given kind of culture war fights or social justice causes, which are going to make them feel like they're doing something subversive or radical, when in reality nothing that they're doing is a threat remotely to any real power center.

 Compact Magazine, which is I think a really interesting magazine, it kind of explores the intersection between left and right populism had an article on June 16, 2023, which I really recommend. The headline of it was: “Ted Kaczynski Anti-Left Leftist.” 

Obviously, this vision he's presenting in some ways is left-wing. It's a denunciation of capitalism and its excesses, the Industrial Revolution, and technology, that has a left-wing ethos for sure, but he was also scornful of modern-day, leftist political expression. 

A week or two ago, Ryan Grim as on our show and we were talking about the kind of fraudulent branding of Bari Weiss and The Free Press. There was supposedly a heterodox and dissident when, in reality, it really grew from objecting to a lot of the excesses of the woke movement. And Ryan basically said, if you're talking about kids with blue hair or whatever color hair someone has, or if they're trans or not or whatever, you're not talking about anything that is about the real structure and dissemination of power. It's like catnip. They're happy to have you fight about racism, feminism, yeah, they love racism. They love feminism. Remember the CIA did that whole video, super woke video? They centered like a, what was she? She was, I think, a non-binary Latina who had neurodivergence. And she was just like, “I stand proud and tall and occupy space unapologetically” as a Latino non-binary immigrant, whatever. They're so happy to have that. “Hey, look at our Black generals. We're going to celebrate our Black military officials. We're the Pentagon. Hey, with the FBI, look at all our cool badass women agents or fighter pilots. Look, they're women now.” It's like, “Oh, wow, that's so awesome. We've done so much to change society.” It's that famous cartoon where a Muslim family in Yemen are looking up at the sky and kind of smiling and saying, “I hear the neck bomb is going to be sent, is going to be dropped by a woman pilot.” 

It's just like, here's Hillary Clinton. She's so radical and such a wild departure from everything before, because she's going to be the first female president when there's like nobody more representative of status quo politics than she. So, you vote for her. You feel like you're doing something really like a big blow against the power center and the patriarchy, because now there's a woman and you put her in office and she's going to be the best possible protector of status-quo prerogatives and power centers everywhere, because she presents this illusion that you've done something historic or subversive, when in reality you're just working as hard as you can to entrench the status quo that you think you're working against. 

Ted Kaczynski was incredibly prescient about that as well. There's a lot more to him than what I've gone over. There's a lot to the essay. I just can't do that justice in the time we have, even though I took another hour. 

I did want to give my thoughts on it, but I also highly encourage you to go find the essay, even just start with the essay and I think you'll be amazed if you just sit down and read it, forget about he's the Unabomber, all that. Just read it, and remember it was written in the early to mid-1990s, and so even if some of it seems more familiar now, at the time it was very prescient, but also the way he described it, the historical framework he employed to shed light on how it works, that it's not just some brand new thing, it's gone back, basically traced it back to the Industrial Revolution. There are not very many better ways to spend your time in terms of your brain and your critical thinking, then to go read that essay. 

AD_4nXeZ4O4xc3AC6Xv7frryn0gRH426dnSiiWL_fHVJUOiYl0GyRu76Tf_ErdSXxAbt8_5IV4kXzpFumx9nFzEAFwyvBJKuSESoXedKaeqEU0JbvwLnTrSW_CnKdpQw8zuiOEQ2N6y3215-SJqPKJrgyg?key=0DG7XNYuAKh3Go88NaPTAg

All right, here's a few questions on Gaza. 

First from @CatRika:

AD_4nXeDszBAjubguve8rlTgI7Mn-b5020uXNnfZVkoParWVVwXaxsc7ieGwbQ-Pm4mfP1cJgIoWBLTbdssttuwF7pINdNX9vjkfYnXlDN7kn2WcPGYMpaFKiIV8dQv0-O3x0eaBvb-PWtryyIFoVo4cqOk?key=0DG7XNYuAKh3Go88NaPTAg

@Lightwins2028:

AD_4nXeN61KYpwZG3hKf2cDi_mGNggR_gU635gTiNeOQj3oY-dkkceFfbHZ41Kmi44lIBFSZL8zijO5XLUYfL3JGhD2CMULlScUn4wv5GkFZ0MGR67rjqe6Xhpzup35JcBSJSzzwMhGBwjE8JUYpszFOPw?key=0DG7XNYuAKh3Go88NaPTAg

It actually is incredible that I come here and sit here every night and do this show more or less every night 500 times. I will accept that as well and agree that it is kind of incredible.

And then from @johnmccray:

AD_4nXfI76b-Eny5Zr7n_gd3-QJRNVYSU6eTrykNr_N4RZVaa_q09qtXZ41VGdHaiPBQbVkmOLSVOMkoAYrhximm-FCZt4FU76OOqus859ynSQArxovwmWfnwG8SxqjRnPiIDENA1DtluA7On5zLC8pJMg?key=0DG7XNYuAKh3Go88NaPTAg

I will confess that what we've seen in Gaza over the last 20 months is not just some horrific tragedy or even war on the other side of the world; it is a genocide that involves some of the most twisted cruelty and sadism I have ever witnessed in my life –  obviously, I wasn't alive in World War II, which is why I say ‘in my lifetime.’ However, when you announce that you're blocking all food from entering an enclave that you fully surround and control – and yes, there's a small border with Egypt and Gaza, but the Israeli military is on the other side of that, controlling egress and ingress into it and out of it (besides, the Egyptian dictator is U.S. supported and always has been for decades because he's there to take marching orders from the U.S. regarding Israel).

When you take this concentrated open-air prison enclave, where people can't leave, can't come in, you ban the media from coming in, and you announce to the world you're putting a blockade on any food from entering it, and you knowingly starve them to death, you knowingly blockade food from entering on top of what they're already experiencing – endless bombing, people burning alive in their churches, in their tents, every hospital, every school, all of civilian life being destroyed… The doctors who are there don't have basic medicines. They don't have antibiotics, they don't have feeding formula for babies, they don't have painkillers or anesthesia for the children who come in with their limbs blown off – just the absolute, worst nightmares that human beings could possibly endure for a sustained period, and on top of that, you start starving them to death and then, instead of letting food distribution in from the actual organizations that are experienced in it and actually want to feed the people, you create some new entity that you control – American military contractors that are, for profit, doing the bidding of the IDF, purposely set up so that it barely gives out any food and then it's a death trap – so, you lure starving people in there and you murder them and massacre them regularly, daily… That is a new kind of evil. 

When you’re starving people to death and then saying, “Hey, here are some grains of flour, come here and get them,” and murdering them when they do, when you purposely set up the centers so they barely stay open for more than 15 minutes. People get noticed right before, and they have to trek miles, very dangerously, to get there. They're not allowed to stay there, waiting for the next time to open. They have to go back, and they're killed on the way there. So, they're faced with this Sophie's choice of either having to stay at home and watch their kids starve to death or knowing they risk their lives and their teenage son's lives to go there and try to get food, knowing that a lot of them are going to be murdered, that is a sick new kind of evil. 

And because of how ubiquitous cell phones are, we have to watch it, and we know it's been streamed live every day, throughout the world. We've all seen just the absolute most sickening, hideous human suffering imaginable, a level of sadism that's almost hard to fathom that people are capable of. And while some Israelis are protesting some more now about the end of this war, for the most part, the view of the Israelis has been, I don't care how many civilians we kill, I don't care how many babies are killed. The babies are terrorists. They'll grow up to be Hamas, so I don't care to kill them. 

These are evils that are difficult to endure, even if your work is journalism, even if you look at some of the most horrible things people are doing, you still have to report on them. Even for that, I mean, it's hard to fathom and express, and I know so many people, and I just thought about myself including in this, that you feel so impotent, so your rage is so purposeless, even though it's all-consuming, because the Trump administration doesn't care. It's filled with Israel fanatics, and it's going to support Israel until the very last Gazan is killed. Can you give them all the weapons, all the money, all the diplomatic cover? 

And then of course, the Israelis themselves are so deranged and fanatical that they don't care either. And short of having the world go in and militarily intervene against Israel or arming Hamas, which is not going to happen, there's not a lot you can do. There definitely has been serious measurable changes for the better in how Americans now look at Israel and look at the Israeli action in Gaza, how they look at American funding of Israel. That's not going away. That's a big, big problem for Israel. 

Once you open your eyes to that, you can't unsee it. And you have a lot of people, as we talked about in that first question, fueling it constantly. I hope I'm one of them. I certainly do what I can to do that. But that doesn't mean that any of that is going to stop this war. 

Even in Europe, and I really despise the Western European political elite and media class, they're utterly supportive of Israel. They are loyal to Israel, they arm Israel, fund them, not as much as the United States, but to a great degree. A lot of those historical reasons, guilt over World War II, which Israel expertly exploits – not that it's difficult to exploit the guilt and psychological fragility of Western Europeans, but they do a great job of it. 

So, you're starting to see things like Macron comes out and recognize a Palestinian state, not unimportant, but still a symbolic step. Keir Starmer, he's probably the most despicable politician from a character perspective, an utterly empty, vapid belief-free politician – he's despised in his own country, despised. – He didn't even go that far. He said, “We are going to recognize a Palestinian state unless Israel starts letting food in.” So, Palestinian statehood is not something they're entitled to. It's like a threat that you make to Israel that you're going to give them if the Israelis don't let food in. You see the Germans, who are always the worst for obvious psychological and historical reasons when it comes to standing up to Israel, sort of saying now, “We're going to cut off arms.” 

We'll see how long any of that lasts. The one group of people you do not want to put your faith and trust in to stand for a cause, to hold firm on beliefs, or convictions and values is Western European political elites. They're pathetic. Pathetic. Obviously, there are some exceptions, but as a class, they're nauseating and pathetic. 

I used to think the British elite class was the worst elite class on the planet. While I still think they are definitely in the running, I'm starting to actually think the Germans are more psychologically warped and sickening. I mean, the Germans were also fanatics about the war in Ukraine – fanatics. You put Germans in power, and they don't think about anything other than going to war with Russia. It's really a bizarre repetitive pattern. 

So, I don't want to pretend that there's some quick solution. I do give as much money as I can to them, you can find Palestinian aid and Gaza aid organizations. There's no shortage of verified GoFundMe accounts from people in Gaza telling their stories. And obviously you have to be a little careful not to give to fraudulent ones, but there are easy ways to verify those. Look for trustworthy people on Twitter who vouch for them, things like that. You can donate to that. Even like $50 at a time, whatever you're capable of, $10, $15. Everything is so high-priced in Gaza that sometimes even if they have food available, they can’t afford it. And I think it's also a good way of showing the people in Gaza that the world actually cares about their plight. 

Earlier today, I talked about how Marjorie Taylor Greene has become very outspoken about refusing to serve the agenda of AIPAC and that AIPAC is now on the march against her. They're going to do what they've done to all sorts of politicians which they are now doing to Thomas Massie as well: try to find some fraudulent, politician who lives in their district, who seems demographically appealing to that district, who has the same politics, except they're going to know that AIPAC paid for their political career, paid for the seat in Congress, and they're going to be supremely loyal. 

One of the worst examples – I mean, I can barely look at this person because of how pathetic and sad it is to watch him. They wanted to get Cori Bush out of Congress. If you're conservative and you dislike Cori Bush, AIPAC doesn't dislike her for any of the reasons that you dislike her. They only care about the fact that she's raised questions like, “Why are we sending so much money to Israel when my whole district is filled with people financially struggling, who don't have healthcare, don't have access to education, have no public safety?” Why are we giving all this money to Israel? Why is AIPAC forcing us to do that?” And they were so determined to take Cori Bush out because of her Israel questioning that they found some utterly craven Black politician, nice liberal, nice Democrat, of course. You have to get a liberal, you have to be a Democrat, and probably have to be a Black politician. His name is Wesley Bell, and they paid $15 million – 15,000 million –for one Democratic primary seat in Congress in St. Louis, to replace Cori Bush with somebody exactly like her, except that he's an AIPAC loyalist. And you can just see him on social media and in speeches, standing up for Israel. You know exactly why $15 million was his price tag, and he knows if he wants to keep that seat, he's going to need AIPAC doing the same. And they're going to try to do the same with Thomas Massie. They're going to try to do the same with Marjorie Taylor Greene. 

They're not always successful. They've tried it many times with Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, even, to a smaller extent, AOC. They made some inroads, but for the most part, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar are too popular in their Democratic primaries and their Democratic constituencies for that to work. 

In 2022, Ilhan Omar almost lost the Democratic primary. I think she won by a few points. So, she's not invulnerable. They never quite spent the money on her that they spent on people like Cori Bush or Jamaal Bowman. But they have a long history of doing this. And they're clearly doing it to Thomas Massie. If you look at the three top billionaires donating to AIPAC to remove Thomas Massie, they're all Jewish billionaires who are extremely loyal to Israel. 

That's the whole point of this effort that Donald Trump supports. One thing you can do is just look at who AIPAC is trying to remove from Congress and just donate to whoever they want to take out of Congress as a way to thwart them because even if you're a conservative and you see them doing it to some left-wing member of Congress that you don't like, it's not like the person they're going to replace that person with is going to be any more appealing to you. There's no difference, except that that person is going to be bought and paid to be an AIPAC agent, who is going to be devoted to Israel and never question Israel. That's the only difference. 

AIPAC's not taking Cori Bush out of Congress or Jamaal Bowman because they're too left-wing. The only thing they care about is if the person is devoted to Israel. The same with Tom Massie and Marjorie Taylor Greene. If they're going to take out members of Congress as punishment for not being loyal enough to Israel, donate to the people they're trying to remove on both sides. If you're on the left, you're not going to agree with Marjorie Taylor Greene or Thomas Massie, obviously. But the people who are going to come in their place are not going to agree with you politically anymore. The only difference will be that those people will be fanatical Israel supporters, like many in the Republican Party, instead of being among the few to question them. So, that is another way I think you could work. 

I know this is thankless work. There's no immediate gratification, but it does work. Public opinion changes. It really does. And especially with independent media with a free internet, with the deconcentrating of power over the discourse no longer in the hands of a few tiny number of gigantic media corporations controlled by people who are all the same basic political outlook, with the same interests, but now huge gigantic people with big audiences who influence a lot of people completely removed from those circles and that dogma. That is also a big reason for optimism. And if you see the polling change in a pretty substantial way as you do on the Israel question and the Gaza question, keep contributing to that. You don't have to have a gigantic platform. 

AD_4nXeZ4O4xc3AC6Xv7frryn0gRH426dnSiiWL_fHVJUOiYl0GyRu76Tf_ErdSXxAbt8_5IV4kXzpFumx9nFzEAFwyvBJKuSESoXedKaeqEU0JbvwLnTrSW_CnKdpQw8zuiOEQ2N6y3215-SJqPKJrgyg?key=0DG7XNYuAKh3Go88NaPTAg

Last question, this is from @coldhotdog:

AD_4nXds9SsOPQsv_8SLaHKL3iYi4l5gM4giApevFq5lvDaAuPuyZtbeLLKoTE7sIbeUnRO6MVU5sX86lX6eOiekoSMY6NlTFqfy7bOzpzs283suX_fDSYDp5UIJ6k8w7_kBMAn6v9xBi3SMieVosil-ndk?key=0DG7XNYuAKh3Go88NaPTAg

All right. The U.S. is sanctioning Brazil, Brazilian officials, and also imposing tariffs on them, not for the reason that Trump has been imposing tariffs on other countries, mainly because he thinks there's unfair trading practices causing a trade deficit. The opposite is true. The United States has a significant trade surplus with Brazil. There's not a trade deficit. So, the tariffs are more – and it was kind of explicit – used as punishment against Brazil for their violation of free speech, their violation to due process, their persecution of political opponents. And obviously, that is not the U.S.'s real goal. 

I wrote an article about this in Folha, where I do reporting, and I'm a columnist in Brazil. And it basically said, Okay, I hope no one takes seriously when the U.S. government says we're upset about the infringements on free speech or the erosions of democracy. It was like a month before Trump announced sanctions on Brazil and tariffs on Brazil, that he went to the Persian Gulf region and heaped praise on Mohammed bin Salman and the leaders of Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, heralded them, hugged them, and not for the first time. While I think Brazil is very repressive and I think Moraes is an absolute tyrant, it's in a completely different universe than what happens in Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Qatar. It's not even close. 

So, any country that's heaping praise on and embracing, hugging and propping up the governments of Saudi Arabia, the Emirates and Qatar, or the Egyptians, or the Jordanians, of the Bahrainis or whomever, the Philippines, Indonesia, obviously, is not a country that cares about repression inside other countries. Obviously.

The United States doesn't go around the world fighting wars or intervening in other countries because they care about repression. That's the pretext. They love dictators as long as dictators are pro-American. They only have a problem with dictatorial regimes if they defy America, like Cuba or Venezuela, Iran, Russia, China, and then you hear “Oh my god, we're the United States, we go and fight for democracies. That is why we have to protect Ukraine.” Even though, arguably, Ukraine has become as repressive as Russia. So, whatever drives the United States, it's not a love for democracy, it is not a contempt for an erosion of liberty, it is not a defense of free speech, obviously, I hope there's no one in my audience who believes that. So, when Trump says, “Oh, we're punishing Brazil because it's become repressive, it’s attacked the free speech,” it's obviously not the reason. 

Then the question that our Locals member is raising, which is a good one.

I don't support the U.S. embargo of Cuba which is now 65 years old. The idea of that was that we're going to change the government of Cuba and free the Cuban people. Obviously, it has not done that. The only thing it's done is make life in Cuba utterly miserable for the population. Same with Venezuela. Same with the sanctions on Iran. So, I don't think that's the role of the United States to go try to change other governments, even if they're pretending, they're changing them out of concern about their oppression when obviously that's not the real reason. 

The reason is they want to replace it with a regime that's more compliant to the United States. And obviously I don't think Trump is intervening in Brazil with punishments and the like because he's concerned in the abstract about free speech. I mean, aside from all the dictatorial regimes we embrace, there's also the attacks on free speech in the United States, which we've gone over many times, including last night, that the Trump administration is spearheading, that the Biden administration before that spearheaded. 

So, the question then becomes, well, what is the real reason? And I want to say, while I view Alexandre de Moraes as a serious menace, as one of the most tyrannically minded people on the planet, even if he's not, say, as powerful or dictatorial as Mohammed bin Salman, just because Brazil is not that kind of society that permits that level of overt, absolute, autocratic tyranny, the way a lot of other countries do that we support prop up, I do think he's a genuine evil figure. Obviously, one of the reasons I talk about it is because I live here. My family is Brazilian. My kids are Brazilian. So, it's something I care about for that reason. And of course, I think the reason why Trump is doing it is because it's not actually a left-wing government in Brazil. Lula is the president. And he was a leftist in his earlier life. He was a labor leader, but he ran for president three times as a leftist, lost. And then finally, in 2002, he was sick of losing. And he wrote this famous letter called Letter to the Brazilian People, where he basically said, “I understand that if I want to be president, I have to moderate. I have to get along with financial centers. This is important for prosperity.” He basically promised not to be a fallaway left-wing dogma to be much more moderate. And then to prove it, he chose a billionaire banker as his vice president, to make clear to financial markets, banks, big corporations inside Brazil that he wasn't going to be a threat. 

They're not leftist at all. But I'm sure in Trump's mind, in the eyes of Marco Rubio, the people who are influencing Trump, he sees a little like basically a communist regime, like a left-wing regime, like from the Cold War, even though it's not remotely that. And I'm not suggesting they're conservative or right-wing. They're not. But they're not communists or even socialists. And part of what Trump's doing is he just looks at Lula and the Brazilian government as an enemy and is convinced, okay, they're our enemy. Let's punish them. If I had to find a justification – I'm not saying I support it, I'm not saying I justify it – but if I had to find a justification, I would say that the real only justification for any of this is the fact that Moraes and the Supreme Court have been now targeting not just America's social media companies. 

So, this is reaching into the United States threatening the free speech rights of American citizens or people legally residing in the United States, attacking and threatening and trying to bully American social media companies. And that is, I believe, an invasion of American sovereignty and an attack on the rights of American citizens. I do think the government, the U.S. government, is duty-bound to draw a very firm line and say, “No, you're not going to cross that line. And if you cross that, we're going to take action against you.” That's the only justification I can think of. 

So, I'm not defending the Magnitsky Act sanctions against Moraes, or even the punitive tariffs against Brazil. I've basically been arguing that if there's anyone who truly is tyrannical in his mindset, who's just absolutely, like, mentally unstable and just an authoritarian tyrant with no limits at all, who's been just vindictive and drunk on his power, it is Alexandre de Moraes. And I do think there's this one justification for the U.S. to cite, to justify taking retaliatory and retributive action against Brazil. 

Obviously, Trump likes Bolsonaro. He strongly identifies with any claims that a politician is being victimized by politicized lawfare because Trump believes as do I, that he himself was the victim of that and he sees when he looks at Bolsonaro a very similar thing happening to Bolsonaro, and I think he feels personally angry by that. So, I think there's some complex motives as well, but other than what I just articulated, I'm not defending the U.S.’s use of sanctions, the exploitation of the dollars in reserve currency to punish the economies of other countries because we don't like what they're doing internally. It's all obviously a fraud and a pretext to say, we're doing it because we care about free speech or due process or whatever. But I think there is a foundation to it, not a very strong one, but a foundation to it that I do think is legitimate. And you know what? I guess, just looking at it from a less principled perspective, I do think Alexandre de Moraes is a completely out-of-control monster. And everyone in Brazil is too scared to stand up to him or too supportive of the fact that he's imprisoning and exiling and silencing Bolsonaro supporters, that there is nobody in Brazil that's capable of stopping him or willing to do so. And the only thing that has really undermined and disrupted him is what Trump just did and now is threatening to do even more with even more invasive sanctions against his wife, against other officials in Brazil. And that is something they have to take very seriously and are taking very seriously. And it's the first time there's been real limits put on it. 

So, from a very kind of instrumentalized, results-based perspective, I confess that I'm happy about where that is leading, even if I do have genuine, really real concerns about the use of American arms and weaponry to do this.

Read full Article
post photo preview
The Pro-Israel Meltdown Over Mahmoud Khalil's NYT Interview: When is Violence Inevitable?; Why is FIRE Suing Marco Rubio: With 1A Lawyer Conor Fitzpatrick
System Update #499

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

AD_4nXdrZek2K_ceevxHeA5qnXoGnbNZK7SjJ_5aD2ImyX02hwtJXA54lyoe8vtbrc76-hJOB0EwzoMWUvJE6HPO1tyKP1nj7fed7h7pz0H9J_hyG6taL1X7S_9JvRD7YuVhxEZYXFSSVYmndKSWOJ-eo2o?key=edY4jjLrGFUnIjxGiF-CCA

The case of Mahmoud Khalil made national headlines – even international headlines – because he was the very first student who was snatched either off the street or out of his apartment by ICE agents under the Trump administration's brand new policy of expelling Israel critics, who they deem supportive of Hamas, which is basically anyone who criticizes Israel whether they're PhD students on green cards or anything else. 

On June 20, a federal judge ordered Khalil, who is a green card holder, released from ICE detention facilities pending the deportation proceedings on the grounds that he had never been arrested, let alone convicted of anything, and presents no threat to anyone or to the public in general. That release has enabled Khalil to make rounds giving interviews to various outlets, and he gave one last week to the New York Times' columnist and podcast host, Ezra Klein. One excerpt of Khalil's interview went viral, largely due to Israel supporters, of course, who claimed he was apologizing for, if not actively supporting, Hamas's October 7 attack on Israel. We'll examine his comments to see if he did say that, but also to examine the important questions raised about who has the right to use violence and when, who is a terrorist or who is a freedom fighter, and whether anything Khalil said remotely poses a danger to the United States. 

Our guest was Conor Fitzpatrick, a lawyer from FIRE.org, the free speech group the ACLU once was: a group of lawyers and activists passionately devoted to defending free speech against any and all attacks on it, regardless of whether the censorship target is on the right, the left, or anything in between. FIRE announced this week that it was suing Marco Rubio and the U.S. State Department under the First Amendment, arguing that the government has the right to deport foreign nationals, but not to do so as punishment for their political expression. 

AD_4nXdrZek2K_ceevxHeA5qnXoGnbNZK7SjJ_5aD2ImyX02hwtJXA54lyoe8vtbrc76-hJOB0EwzoMWUvJE6HPO1tyKP1nj7fed7h7pz0H9J_hyG6taL1X7S_9JvRD7YuVhxEZYXFSSVYmndKSWOJ-eo2o?key=edY4jjLrGFUnIjxGiF-CCA

Foto preta e branca de rosto de homem visto de pertoO conteúdo gerado por IA pode estar incorreto.

We have covered the case of Mahmoud Khalil many times on this show. He was the sort of test case, the canary in the coal mine, showing that the Trump administration intended not to deport all foreign students or most foreign students or just foreign students who expressed a political opinion and engaged in political activism. That's not the Trump Administration's policy at all. They don't even have a policy of deporting foreign students on U.S. soil for criticizing the United States. What they do have is a policy of deporting foreign students in the United States or at American universities who criticize Israel or protest against that foreign country. 

Mahmoud Khalil was detained in his apartment, where he lives with his American wife. She was eight months pregnant; their newborn infant was born. And she's an American citizen. His newborn infant is an American Citizen. And he's a green card on the path to American citizenship. 

Since then, there have been many other cases of students being snatched off the street by plainclothes ICE agents and unmarked cars, including a Tufts PhD student, Rumeysa Ozturk, who the Trump administration admits, did nothing other than co-author an op-ed in the Tuft's student newspaper, where she called on the administration, along with three other students who were co-authors, to implement the student Senate's decision that the administration should divest from Israel. That's all she did. Nothing against Jews, nothing in favor of Hamas, any of that. She just criticized Israel and urged divestment because the student senate had voted for it. It was essentially saying abide. She, too, was snatched off the street, put in ICE detention, and now has been released. And there have been many other cases since. 

In the case of Mahmoud Khalil, the federal court said you can continue the deportation proceeding, but there's no basis or justification for keeping him in a detention prison while all of this proceeds. If you win the deportation process, you can obviously deport him, but there's no reason why he should rot in jail rather than being at home with his wife and child while this process proceeds, because he's never done anything remotely to suggest that he's a threat to anybody. He was never arrested as part of the student protest or any other time in his life, never convicted of a crime, never the subject of a complaint with the police. 

And so, he's now out and he's giving interviews, as is his right. He's given several interviews. One of them was for The New York Times columnist and podcast host, Ezra Klein

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
Should Obama Admin Officials Be Prosecuted for Russiagate Lies? Major Escalations in Trump/Brazil Conflict
System Update #498

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

AD_4nXeM7_lvrgdg_5Q9HFyUAtiZmWcpNFbv5Y5SlIIi4PzkGFrNyl7a32vxRkND5L9ugAgbJXX9MBL9c3Yac2CNxE5Xv4dDiigLQUx75j4d5gokXZt3PW088MjMKVwVxIcV9pI2Cu4hXz-IRwukRmzz5bU?key=PiLZZVDB8mI7afwDZI6o3g

The Russiagate fraud is receiving all sorts of new attention and scrutiny thanks to documents first declassified and then released by Trump's Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. As we reported at length last week, these documents were quite incriminating for various Obama officials, such as former CIA Director James Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan, FBI Director Jim Comey and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, as they reveal what was a deliberate attempt to weaponize intelligence findings for purely partisan and political ends in 2016, namely, to manipulate the American electorate into voting for their former Obama administration colleague Hillary Clinton as president, and more importantly, defeating Donald Trump, and then repeatedly lying about it to Congress and the American people. 

Yesterday, it was reported that Attorney General Pam Bondi is not only investigating, which is kind of meaningless, but what's not meaningless is that she's also apparently empaneling a grand jury to investigate whether there was prosecutable criminality at the highest levels of the Obama administration. We'll examine that obviously important question. 

Then, we’ll examine what's driving all his complex escalation of Trump’s decision for 50% tariffs on Brazilian products and what's at stake, and the potential consequences for all sides. 

AD_4nXeM7_lvrgdg_5Q9HFyUAtiZmWcpNFbv5Y5SlIIi4PzkGFrNyl7a32vxRkND5L9ugAgbJXX9MBL9c3Yac2CNxE5Xv4dDiigLQUx75j4d5gokXZt3PW088MjMKVwVxIcV9pI2Cu4hXz-IRwukRmzz5bU?key=PiLZZVDB8mI7afwDZI6o3g

AD_4nXcMLHddBcYrOQkGBrftza6Qmzy1fTdJQYf__iGj6ghLK6A5bXi0gHsAdFB4QQg9QIS86OS8NB9osGCnH9eBJ-eq249C6MDSOU7yW1FeA7Fc3dHzrytPwkzWr928FUUPA3BRlx4Q2CPAJI7vGYnjUtg?key=PiLZZVDB8mI7afwDZI6o3g

I believe it's been obvious, pretty much from the very beginning of the Russiagate hoax, the Russiagate fraud, which I'll remind you, again, was driven by the core conspiracy claim that the Trump campaign officials collaborated and colluded and conspired with the Kremlin to hack into the DNC email server as well as John Podesta's email and disseminate those emails to WikiLeaks and by the broader conspiracy theory that Trump was being blackmailed by Vladimir Putin with sexual material, compromising financial information, personal blackmail as well, and that therefore the Kremlin was basically, once Trump got elected running the country, was a completely unhinged and deranged conspiracy theory from the start for which there was no evidence. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals